1. Type Your Title Here Author’s First Name Last Name, degree,…. Mentor’s First Name Last Name, degree Dept. Name here, NYU Lutheran Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY Introduction  Bullet point background information that establishes the importance of the topic.  Identify rationale for your review and gaps in the literature that your review will fill.  List the focused clinical questions to be addressed in your review as individual bullet points (if more than one) Methods  Describe the study screening and selection criteria (inclusion/exclusion criteria for articles).  Describe which outcome measures, time points, interventions, and comparison groups were addressed by your study.  Describe the search strategy (databases searched, exact search strings used).  Describe the data extraction strategy (how you retrieved the relevant data from the articles, who retrieved them, and how disagreements between the extractors were resolved).  Describe the method for evaluating the quality of evidence from each article. Results  Summarize the main (important) results for each table and figure  Brief summary of Table 1  Brief summary of Table 2  Brief summary of Table 3 (this table could include each article’s quality rating)  Brief summary of Table 4 Limitations and Strengths  Briefly state your study’s limitations. Common limitations are few high quality studies, publication bias, and possibility of excluding relevant articles based on search strategy.  Briefly state your study’s strengths. Common strengths are investigating a new topic and synthesizing results from many relevant populations. Conclusions  Bullet point your conclusions here.  These can include suggestions for future research and recommendations for clinical care. Table 2. Article Quality Rating System [decide on a rating system and report it here] Table 3. Characteristics of StudiesTable 1. Number of Abstracts Identified Table 4. Summary of Study Findings Article Identifier (first author, year) Ouctome 1 Events/Total Ouctome 2 Events/Total Odds Ratio (95% Confidence Interval) Article 1Data data Article 2data Article 3data CategoryScore Study Design Ecological study Cross-sectional survey Retrospective case control Longitudinal cohort Randomized control trial XXXXXXXXXX Recruitment Random selection Other, but well described Not reported XXXXXX Response Rate at Baseline >60% <60% XxXx Response Rate at Follow-up <20% per year >20% per year Not reported XXXXXX Training of Examiners Yes, described Yes, not described No or not reported XXxXXx Reliability of Examiners Reliability assessed & statistics reported Reliability assessed, but statistics not reported Not reported XXxXXx Confounders Adjusted for in the Analyses Yes Not reported XXXX QuestionMedlineEmBaseTotal Abstracts Papers Reviewed Number of Papers Included Question 1data Question 2data Question 3data TotalNNNNN Article Identifier (first author, year) SettingDiagnosisSample Size InterventionPrimary Outcome Studied Length of Follow-up Article 1dataDatadata Data Article 2data Data Article 3data