TITLEAuthorsAffiliations
INTRODUCTION
Objective
REFERENCES
Specify the objective(s) of yourstudy
On average, LOS was almost 4-fold higher in the treatment group compared to the control group. This may be due to thePrevious studies have shown 30-day complication rates ranging from 2-10% when utilizing the bungee cord and magnet method in surgery. Our complication rate was much higher than those reported in the literature, as well as almost 9 time higher than the control group. This finding may be due to lack of training using this method at our institution and/or the differences in the size of the surgical wound remaining after surgery.The high 30-day mortality rate in the treatment group compared to the control group is concerning. These results may also be due to the lack of training in the bungee method.Our results indicate thatthe laparoscopic technique is superior to the bungeemethod forspleen removal surgery. We would suggest that surgeons using the bungee method consider switching to the laparoscopic approach when performing spleen surgery.
Less is more in a posterBe succinctUse bulletsAsk yourself, would you be drawn to your poster if you were walking by?For this section:Usetheliterature toestablishpreviouswork related to your research question.Thissection should describe the gaping hole in the literature and how your specific aims will attempt to address the gaping hole.3 or 4 bullets should be enough
UseTables/Charts/Figures/Graphs to display your results with succinct explanations of the pertinent findings of your study.Hint: Don’t just regurgitate the same information already present in your tables and figures. Pick out specific pieces of information on which you would like your reader tofocus.DoAge and gender were similar between the groups (Table 1).Statistically significant differences were seen for LOS (Table 1), as well as for complication and mortality rates (Figure 1).Don’tThere were no statistically significant differences in age (36.8+5.6 vs. 37.5+4.3; p=0.846) orgender(85.7% males vs. 91.4% males; p=0.802) betweenthe groups (Table 1).Statistically significant differences were seen for LOS(4.1+2.5 vs. 1.2+0.5; p<0.001; Table 1),as well as for30-day complication rates (71.4% vs 8.6%; p<0.001) andmortalityrates (42.8% vs 2.9%; p<0.001; Figure1).
DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION
LOGO
RESULTS
STUDY DESIGN
State theresearch designusedto address your objective(s)?Examples:Caseseries, case-control, retrospective cohort, cross-sectional, prospective cohort, randomized controlled trial
METHODS
TextTextTextText
Table 1. Demographic and LOS comparisons between treatment and control groups
Figure 1. Complication and mortality rate comparisons
p<0.001
p<0.001
0
Embed
Upload