Biological(Threat(Reduc+on(Program((BTRP)( • EDPs(for(human(and(animal(health(include:( o Avian(and(pandemic(inﬂuenza((inﬂuenza(viruses)( o CrimeanFCongo(Hemorrhagic(Fever((CCHF(virus)( o Anthrax((Bacillus(anthracis)( o Brucella((Brucella(species)( o Tularemia((Francisella(tularensis)( o Botulism((Clostridium(botulinum)( o Tick(Borne(Encephali+s((TBE(virus)( o Plague((Yersinia(pes6s)( o Foot(and(Mouth(Disease((FMD)( o Glanders( o Newcastle(Disease(Virus( o Rinderpest( o Pox(viruses((goat(and(sheep(pox)( o Swine(fevers((African(and(Classical(Swine(Fever)( • Although( the( BTRPFprovided( training( focus( on( these( pathogens,( the(knowledge(and(skills(learned(and(prac+ced(are(applicable(to(a( broad( range( of( other( infec+ous( diseases( and( public( and( animal( health(concerns( ( ( 4(
Example(–(STROBE(checklist (( Item No RecommendationTitle and abstract 1 (a) Indicate the study’s design with a commonly used term in the title or the abstract (b) Provide in the abstract an informative and balanced summary of what was done and what was foundIntroductionBackground/rationale 2 Explain the scientific background and rationale for the investigation being reportedObjectives 3 State specific objectives, including any prespecified hypothesesMethodsStudy design 4 Present key elements of study design early in the paperSetting 5 Describe the setting, locations, and relevant dates, including periods of recruitment, exposure, follow-up, and data collectionParticipants 6 (a) Cohort study—Give the eligibility criteria, and the sources and methods of selection of participants. Describe methods of follow-up Case-control study—Give the eligibility criteria, and the sources and methods of case ascertainment and control selection. Give the rationale for the choice of cases and controls Cross-sectional study—Give the eligibility criteria, and the sources and methods of selection of participants (b) Cohort study—For matched studies, give matching criteria and number of exposed and unexposed Case-control study—For matched studies, give matching criteria and the number of controls per case 48(
Introduc+on(sec+on( Purpose:(to(convince(the(reader(that(your(study(will( yield(knowledge(or(knowFhow(that(is(new(and(useful(• Iden+fy(a(gap(in(knowledge(or(knowFhow((study( problem)( o Provide(key(background((scope/nature/magnitude(of(the(gap)( o Be(clear(that(ﬁlling(this(gap(will(be(useful.( o Describe(the(relevant(limita+ons(of(previous(studies(• Present(your(approach(to(ﬁlling(the(gap((study( purpose)( o Be(clear(that(your(approach(is(new( o Emphasize(that(your(approach(addresses(the(limita+ons(of( previous(studies(in(a(logical(and(compelling(way( Oaen(requires(just(three(paragraphs( 65(
Introduc+on(Checklist(Background Statement: Scope nature magnitude of the gap Be clear that filling the gap is usefulProblem Statement Describe relevant limitationsStudy Statement Be clear that your approach is new Emphasize that your approach addresses limitationsSummary Statement Summarizes the study 66(
Randomiza+on(FF(Concealment(A( generated( alloca+on( schedule( should( be(implemented(by(using(alloca+on(concealment,(a( c r i + c a l( m e c h a n i s m( t h a t( p r e v e n t s(foreknowledge( of( treatment( assignment( and(thus(shields(those(who(enroll(par+cipants(from(being( inﬂuenced( by( this( knowledge.( The(decision( to( accept( or( reject( a( par+cipant(should(be(made,(and(informed(consent(should(be(obtained(from(the(par+cipant,(in(ignorance(of(the(next(assignment(in(the(sequence( 99(
Results(Purpose:(to(describe(the(results(of(data(analysis(that(are(relevant(to(the(study(purpose(• Start(with(the(tables(and(ﬁgures.((Write(the(text(later.( o Use(tables(to(highlight(individual(values( o Use(ﬁgures(to(highlight(trends(and(rela+onships(• Text(supplements(and(reinforces(tables(and(ﬁgures( o Summarize/emphasize(highlights( o Fill(in(gaps((ogen(minor)(• Present(results(in(a(logical(sequence(• Describe(what(you(found,(not(what(you(did((Methods)(• Consider(subFsec+ons(similar(to(the(ones(in(Methods(• Look(to(published(ar+cles(for(poten+al(templates( 119(
Results((con+nued)(Tables/Figures(• Check(your(math;(provide(consistent(row(or(column( summa+on.(• Keep(lines(to(a(minimum;(avoid(ver+cal(lines.(• Use(footnotes(to(clarify(points(of(poten+al(ambiguity.(• Check(headings,(labels(of(rows/columns/axes,(and(footnotes(Text(• Highlight(key(rela+onships(between(dependent/independent( variables.(• Present(a(logical(sequence:(( o in(parallel(with(methods((consider(similar(subheadings)( o background(data(→(descrip+ve(→(bivariate(→(mul+variate(• Make(sure(all(numbers(in(text(are(consistent(with(tables/ ﬁgures.((($$$$( Oaen(requires(just(three(paragraphs(+(three(tables/ﬁgures( 120(
Discussion( Purpose:(to(interpret(your(results(and(jus+fy(your( interpreta+on(• Dis+ll(the(essence(of(your(study( o ReFstate(key(results( o State(main(conclusion( ! Be(clear(about(why(results(support(the(conclusion( ! Maintain(connec+on(with(the(purpose(of(the(study(• Interpret(your(study(in(the(context(of(the(literature( o Compare(with(results(of/methods(used(in(related(studies( o Emphasize(strengths(of(your(study(and(what(is(new(• State(limita+ons/caveats((frankly,(without(apology)(• Make(recommenda+ons( o Changes(in(prac+ce/policy( o Future(studies,(including(some(speciﬁcs((e.g.(study(method)( Oaen(requires(just(four(or(ﬁve(paragraphs( 160(
Discussion(Checklist( *Dis2ll*the*essence*of*study* a. Restate*key*results* b. State*main*conclusion*Z*Be*clear*about*why*results*support*the*conclusion.*Z*Maintain*connec2on*with*purpose*of*the*study. (Interpret*your*study*in*the*context*of*the*literature* a. Compare*with*results*of/methods*used*in*related*studies* b. Emphasize*strengths*of*your*study,*and*what*is*new (State*limita2ons/caveats*(use*examples)*Discuss*limita2ons*of*the*study,*taking*into*account*sources*of*poten2al*bias*or*imprecision.*Discuss*both*direc2on*and*magnitude*of*any*poten2al*bias (Make*recommenda2ons* a. changes*in*prac2ce/policy* b. future*studies,*including*some*speciﬁcs*(e.g.*study*method) 161(
Synopsis(–(Find(weaknesses( Reliability of information about risk factors of chronic diseases collected in Missouri through the Behavioral Risk Factors Surveillance System. Synopsis (initial version) The Behavioral Risk Factors Surveillance System is widely used by health care authorities of the States to measure the prevalence of risk factors of chronic diseases. Despite its extensive utilization, only a few studies that assess reliability and validity of collected data have been conducted. A double testing study was carried out in the State of Missouri to assess reliability of information collected through the System. Authors repeatedly interviewed 222 people by phone, who passed full interview in March-April 1993. The repeated interview was conducted after 6-30 days following the first one. Repeatability of results was high for demographic data (kappa 0.85-1.00). Reliability of information about chronic diseases and risk factors thereof was also high. Kappa values ranged from 0.82 for the question about hypertension up to 1.00 for the question about smoking at that moment. In respect of the cancer survey procedures the reliability was lower for the knowledge of prostate cancer detection tests (kappa 0.21), than the tests used to diagnose cancer in women (mammography and smears). The question about attitude to smoking showed lower reliability than the question about actions to combat smoking. In general our data demonstrate flexibility of the System and its applicability to collecting information.
Synopsis(–(Published(version:(Find(weaknesses( The Behavioral Risk Factors Surveillance System is widely used by health care authorities of the States to measure the prevalence of risk factors of chronic diseases. We carried out a double testing study to assess reliability of information collected through the System in the State of Missouri. We repeatedly interviewed 222 people by phone, who passed full interview in March-April 1993. The repeated interview was conducted after 6-30 days following the first one. Repeatability of results was high for demographic data (kappa 0.85-1.00). Reliability of information about chronic diseases and risk factors thereof was also high. Kappa values ranged from 0.82 for the question about hypertension up to 1.00 for the question about smoking at that moment. In respect of the cancer survey procedures the reliability was lower for the knowledge of prostate cancer detection tests (kappa 0.21), than the tests used to diagnose cancer in women (mammography and smears). The question about attitude to smoking showed lower reliability than the question about actions to combat smoking.
Structured(Synopsis(DECREASE OF MORTALITY OF RECTAL CANCER BY IMPLEMENTATION OF SCREENING FOR BLOOD IN FECES Introduction. Although tests to detect blood in feces are widely used to diagnose rectal cancer, there are no evidences that such use can result into decrease of mortality of this type of cancer. We conducted a randomized survey of the use of the method and showed its efficiency. Methods. 46,551 participants of the survey aged 50-80 were randomly selected either for the control group or for one of the test groups. The rectal cancer screening was carried out once a years in the first group, and once in two years in the second one. Those with positive test results passed through additional examination, including colonoscopy. Mortality statistics were collected for all participants over 13 years observation period. A group of experts determined causes of death, and an autopsist (pathologist) determined a stage of cancer for each case. Variations in mortality of rectal cancer were assessed by special statistical methods. Results. Total mortality of rectal cancer over the 13 year period was worth 5.88 per 1,000 (95% confidence interval 4.61-7.15) in the annually screened group, 8.44 (95% confidence interval 6.82-9.84) in the biannually screened group, and 8.83 (95% confidence interval 7.26-10.40) in the control group. This indicator in the first screened group (not the second one) was certainly lower as compared to the control group. This group showed detection of cancer at earlier stage, and the forecast of the survival rate in patients was better along with decrease of mortality. Conclusions. Annual tests to detect blood in feces decreased total mortality of rectal cancer by 33% within 13 years.
Title(Purpose:(to(provide(a(brief,(informa+ve(summary(that(will(asract(your(target(audience( What(goes(into(the(+tle?(• The(topic((T)(–(study(subjects(and(seing( o Who,(what,(when,(where(• In(addi+on,(chose(one(or(two(among:( o M(–(Methods( o R(–(Results( o C(–(Conclusions( o N(–(name(of(study(or(data(set( Highlight(what(is(new(and(useful( 173(
Title(examples( Title* ******T*******M*******R*******C*******N*• Longitudinal(evalua6on(of(prostrateY • +((((((((+( speciﬁc(an6gen(levels(in(men(with(and( ( without(prostrate(disease(o An(injury(preven+on(program(in(an( o +( AfricanFAmerican(community( (• Smoking,(pregnancy,(and(source(of(preY • +(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((+( natal(care:(Results(from(the(Pregnancy( Risk(Assessment(Monitoring(System( (o Reduc+on(of(highFrisk(sexual(behavior( o +((((((((+(((((((?( among(heterosexuals(undergoing(HIV( an+body(tes+ng:(A(randomized(clinical( trial( 174(
Drag((and(debug)(an(abstract(• Check(for(internal(consistency( o Logical(ﬂow(from(Purpose(to(Methods(to(Results( to(Conclusion?( o Conclusion(consistent(with(the(Purpose?(• If(you(see(ﬂaws(in(the(Abstract,(ask(yourself:( o Do(I(need(to(do(addi+onal(analyses?( o Addi+onal(literature(review?( o Addi+onal(thinking?( 191(
1.(Planning(• Research funder’s program areas and priorities. – What other projects have been funded?• Read the instructions!• For a specific RFP (request for proposals), READ the RFP!• Does your project match the funder’s needs?• Do you have the capacity to do the proposed project?• Be familiar with the submission process – Is there an online submission process?
What(the(customer(wants…(Innova+on(( • New(methods(for(old(problems((examples)( • Old(methods((elsewhere)(for(old(problems( (examples)( • Any(method(for(new(problems((BE(THE(FIRST)( o First(papers,(no(maser(how(precarious( become(seminal(ones((1)(( ( (1) Ugbomoiko et al. 2008. Parasites of importance for human health in Nigerian dogs: high prevalence and limited knowledge of pet owners. BMC Vet Research. 209(
Parts(of(a(Grant(Proposal(NOTE: These are are different for different funders –read the instructions!1. Cover(leser(2. Summary(or(abstract(3. Problem(or(Needs(statement(4. Project(descrip+on( • Introduc+on( • Objec+ves(( • Methods(5. Evalua+on(6. Key(personnel(7. Budget( 210(
4.(Submiing(• Review your work – Have you followed instructions? – Ask someone from outside of your team to review your proposal to get a new perspective• Revise – Correct any errors – Make as clear and concise as possible• Submit – Follow directions 214(