What makes a good proposal: possible proposal template



Title1:

Running title:

Key words:

Authors:

Corresponding author:

Corresponding author e-mail:

Is the proposed review already written:

Proposed submission due date:

Manuscript type: Narrative / Systematic2 (with or without meta-analysis)

Table of contents:

Abstract3 (300-400 words)

i) Narrative review

Introduction: provide a brief background, define the research question and substantiate the need for the proposed review

Methods: define search terms, time period searched and databases interrogated

Results4: provide a summary of the review findings

Conclusion4: summarise how the update impacts clinical practice and/or what significance it has for reproductive clinicians and scientists.

ii) Systematic review (with or without meta-analysis)

Introduction: provide a brief background, define the research question and substantiate the need for the proposed review

Methods: define search terms, time period searched & databases interrogated; list exclusion/inclusion criteria (including assessment of manuscript quality and analysis of bias)

Results4: briefly summarise primary outcome(s) assessed and provide a summary of the review findings

Conclusion4: summarise how the update impacts clinical practice and/or what significance it has for reproductive clinicians and scientists.

1PRISMA guidelines should be followed for titles of systematic reviews (without or without meta-analysis).

2Human Reproduction Update recommends that all systematic reviews are registered with PROSPERO ()

3The abstract format varies for (i) narrative review or (ii) systematic review (with or without meta-analysis).

4Provide a summary of the anticipated findings and impact to the field if proposed review is not yet written

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download