Meta-AnalysisGeneral Guidelines: Use this to file to prepare your EBP Rounds presentation if the best

evidence to answer your clinical question is a Meta-Analysis EBP rounds is time limited, so try to set up your presentation to maximize

the opportunity for group discussion The case is not to be morning report style: give just enough information

to define the clinical problem at hand The background discussion does not need to be a comprehensive review;

again, go into just enough detail to understand the rationale for the study you about to discuss.

Feel free to include more or less than is on this template. This is meant to help you, not to dictate what you do.

Consider individualizing your group’s presentation by changing the background, adding humor, make it fun!

Look in the notes section below each frame; there are informational links that you can use to learn as you go.

Case Presentation/Clinical QuestionMedical Student, 2-3 minutes

Background InformationMedical Student, 2-3 minutes

Presentation of Evidence/ArticleIntern 1 results

Intern 2 methods5-10 minutes

Critical AppraisalResident, 5-10 minutes

DiscussionGroup, 10 minutes

Figure 2. Timeline of typical Evidence-Based Practice Rounds. Total time is 30 minutes per team, with two teams presenting in a one-hour session.

Here is a timeline to work with as your group develops EBP rounds

EBP Roundsplace date here

brief statement about case: xx yo man with hematuria and pulmonary hemorrhage

Team XResident:Interns: Studs:

Brief description of case

What is your Clinical Question?

Patient: Intervention: Comparison: Outcome:

Literature Search

Paste copy of title page from article in this slide

Primary Hypothesis or (Hypotheses):

Study Selection for Inclusion in the Meta-analysis

Inclusion Criteria:

Literature search

How did the authors search for references?

What were the results of the search (how many studies were included in the review, representing how many patients?)

Validity Analysis

Were assessments of the included studies reproducible?

Were reviewers blinded to each others abstraction?

Is agreement reported?

Analysis for Homogeneity

Results:

Outcome 1 (list)

Odds Ratio =

Number Needed to Treat/Harm=

Outcome 2 (list)

Odds Ratio =

Number Needed to Treat/Harm=

Methodological Strengths/Weaknesses

Clinical Bottom Line

Applicability

Can the results be applied to patients? Were all clinically relevant outcomes

considered? Are the benefits worth the harm and cost? What does this mean for this particular

patient?

How will this evidence effect your medical decision making in the future?