SPP Oral

What exactly is the SPP Oral presentation?

In brief, the answer is: The SPP Oral is a 20-minute (maximum) “narrated
PowerPoint” presentation. The SPP Oral is verbally delivered and submitted via a
media file (instructions on this will be provided nearer the time); the submission
also includes a PDF of slides – both those that are actually presented and any
additional (optional) slides that are held in reserve. These reserve slides are those
that are not presented in the main oral presentation but which are instead kept in
anticipation of specific audience queries. Reserve slides are optional.

The best way to think of the SPP Oral is that it aims to reproduce the experience of
preparing and presenting a scientific presentation at a medical conference. Such
presentations could be systematic reviews or research projects; either way they
follow the same general format (e.g. Introduction, Methods, Results, Conclusions).

Flexibility
The SPP Oral has less flexibility than the SPP Paper or SPP Supplement. This is
because the SPP Oral is intended to follow the standard oral presentation format
at a scientific meeting. Due to time constraints at meetings, the format for
presentation does not vary much.

SPP Oral marking philosophy

The SPP Oral marking approach recognises the fact that for academic
presentations, preparation and content are as important as o ratorical skills.
Public-speaking skills are of course important, but a scientific assembly differs
from other oratorical endeavors in its emphasis on content and adherence to
guidelines for format (e.g. time).

In addition to the importance of “non-verbal” skills, the SPP Oral has an additional
characteristic requiring explanation: some of its specifics will have already been
marked as part of the SPP Paper and SPP Supplement. This material should not be
double-marked. For example, if your systematic review search strategy does not
include gray literature, then marks for that omission will have been already
subtracted from the SPP Paper’s Methods section. It is not desirable to repeat
marks deductions in the SPP Oral marking.

Given the above, the SPP Oral marking must take into account three general areas:
verbal presentation, information organisation, and global (rather than specific)
content consideration. Details on marking these areas are provided below.

Marking table overview

It is worth re-emphasising that the SPP Oral should be evaluated simultaneously
with the SPP Paper and (to a lesser degree) the SPP Supplement. The information
should be in agreement, for example, and this can only be confirmed by parall el
evaluations.

As a separately marked component, the SPP Oral has a separate Excel marking
table (rubric). An overview of the marking table is shown below. The details of the
table are not intended to be readable as they are in the text below (but if curiosity
compels, use screen magnification).

Figure 1: Marking tool for the SPP Oral

Specific marks allocations are provided below. Marks total to 50; the score is
doubled to reach a percentage (which accounts for 25% of total Y3 marks).
Allocations are:
- Formatting and organisation: 25 marks
o Title slide: 2 marks
o Font/alignment/margins: 3 marks
o Consistency across slides: 4 marks
o Amount of content on individual slides: 5 marks
o Phrasing of individual slides’ bullet points: 2 marks
o Organisation of slide set into sections: 4 marks
o Spelling and grammar: 5 marks
- Compatibility with SPP Paper and SPP Supplement: 5 marks
 o Inclusion of appropriate information: 3 marks
o Exclusion of extraneous information: 2 marks
- Tables and figures: 3 marks
o Construction (e.g. independently interpretable): 2 marks
o Consistency with SPP Paper and SPP Supplement: 1 mark
- Delivery: 12 marks
o Adherence to time limit: 1 mark
o Pace: 2 marks
o Areas of emphasis: 2 marks
o Flow: 5 marks
o Persuasiveness: 2 marks
- Academic style: 5 marks

SPP Oral marking: Parameters & approach

Based on the above points, the SPP Oral marking concentrates on two parameters:
1) distillation of key information from a full-length manuscript (SPP Paper and
Supplement) into a concise set of slides, and 2) well -organised and effective
presentation of the slide-set. Your success in garnering the most marks for the SPP
Oral can be optimised by paying heed to the following keys:
- Consistency with the information in SPP Paper and SPP Supplement
- Inclusion of all information that is central to a time-restricted presentation
- Exclusion (or relegation to non-presented “reserve” slides) of information that is not
necessary for the focused oral discussion of the project
- Individual slides well-organised, legible, and effective in communication
- Avoidance of typographical errors, mislabeled figures or tables, etc.
- Presentation cleanly organised into appropriate “sections”
- Time apportioned appropriately to sections (introduction, methods, results,
conclusions)
- Strict adherence to presentation format/time (marking stops at the time limit)
- Smooth verbal presentation, reflecting in-depth knowledge of project and findings
- Overall academic, scientific tone

The SPP Oral marking components reflect the above desired parameters. Details on
each marking parameter are provided in the next sections.

Formatting and organisation

The SPP Oral title does not need to match that of the SPP Paper. Indeed, journal -
dictated article titling may produce titles that are too lengthy to comfortably fit on
an SPP Oral title slide. With regard to titles, it’s OK to be imaginative. Some rules
can be relaxed. The SPP Oral title can be declarative (e.g. “Prehospital blood
transfusion saves lives in multisystem blunt trauma”) or can pose a question ( e.g.
“Is HEMS dispatch warranted for traumatic cardiac arrest?”). Unlike other types of
titles, for the SPP Oral title commonly used abbreviations (e.g. HEMS, ED) are
acceptable – they save valuable slide space.

The title slide should contain, in addition to the title itself, standard presenter
information as would be required at a scientific meeting. (Some meetings may
require additional information, such as conflict-of-interest statements, that are not
required for the SPP Oral.)

In the interests of readability, the SPP Oral should be characterised by formatting

that is consistent, and which incorporates sufficiently large font. Alignment (e.g.
justification) and margins are not dictated, but these should be set in such fashion
as to facilitate readability.

Individual slides should not be overloaded with content. Furthermore, individual

points within a slide (e.g. bullet points) should not contain too-lengthy text. As a
rough guide, the text in a given bullet-point should occupy only one line. Note:
“Bullets” do not have to be used, but higher-marking presentations tend to have
some type of a sharp demarcation between key points on a slide.

The need to keep bullet-point items to one line (or two, at most) usually dictates
use of phrases rather than complete sentences. Grammar marking is thus relaxed
on this point and on the related point of needing a period (full stop) after each full
sentence and not having a period if it’s not a sentence. As long as the slide appears
balanced and consistent the marker will not detract marks for this grammar issue.
However, the recommendation to safely avoid any chance of marks reduction is to
be consistent on a given slide. Use either all phrases with no periods, or use all
sentences with periods. Otherwise you risk distracting the audience with
inconsistency.

The set of individual slides should come together in a well-organised presentation

that generally follows the organisation of the SPP Paper. After the title slide comes
an introduction, then methods and results. Next is the discussion, incorporating
mention of limitations as well as how the current work adds to the evidence base.
Conclusions are accompanied by recommendations for “the next step” ( e.g. RCT).

Spelling and grammar errors that would be minimally problematic in a journal

article can be glaringly distracting in a presentation. Fortunately, presentations
such as the SPP Oral are relatively short – there is not much material to proofread.
The combination of short presentation length and high risk of disruption translates
into a high marking bar for the SPP Oral’s spelling and grammar parameter.

Compatibility with SPP Paper & Supplement

The intent for the SPP Oral is that it represents distillation of the SPP manuscript.
It follows that the key points from the SPP Paper should be included in the SPP
Oral. As a corollary, the SPP Oral should not contain information that is neither in
the SPP Paper nor in the SPP Supplement.

Tables & figures

Complex tables with large numbers of rows and/or columns are rarely well -suited
to an oral presentation. Similarly, any figure that requires lengt hy explanation is
not likely a good fit for the SPP Oral. As is the case with tables and figures in the
SPP Paper and SPP Supplement, the tables and figures in the SPP Oral should have
stand-alone interpretability. This can be particularly important for a scientific
presentation, which may be taking place in a large venue with suboptimal
acoustics.

Make sure the general appearance of tables and figures in the SPP Oral follow the
pattern of similar information in the rest of your SPP project. For instance, if the
manuscript’s pain score figure uses solid lines for Group A and dashed lines for
Group B, the SPP Oral’s tables should follow this convention. In the same vein,
wherever feasible the tables in the SPP Oral slides are configured in similar fashion
as those in the SPP Paper and SPP Supplement.

Delivery
Verbal presentation skills account for roughly a fourth of the SPP Oral marks. The
presentation should be crisp, with smooth flow both within the points of a slide and
also across different slides. Avoid unnecessary and distracting pauses that break
the pattern of your delivery (e.g. avoid long silences between slides).

Different speakers, and different listeners, are comfortable with different

presentation paces. Markers are asked to be flexible in this arena, subtracting
marks only for pace issues that substantially detract from the presentation.

Whatever your pace, it should be consistent. For instance, avoid a marked uptick in
the rate of speech in the latter portion of your presentation (if you realise you’re
pushing the time limit). On a related note, the delivery should emphasise, by
allotting more time to, those parts of the SPP Oral that are the most important.
Apportionment of half of the allotted time to an exhaustive review of the existing
evidence will leave insufficient time to cover the project -specific material.
If trepidation about public speaking is the most common characteristic of abstract
presenters, perhaps the second most common is a tendency to run over the allotted
time. At some major meetings, speakers who run overtime are unceremoniously cut
off. For the SPP Oral, marking stops after 20 minutes. The only “grace period” for
the SPP Oral is in rounding – the marker is asked to give you 30 seconds to wrap up
if you’re still going at t = 20 minutes; at 20 minutes and 30 seconds, markers are
asked to stop marking. Material that is presented after the 20-minute (+ 30-second)
time frame is counted as omitted, and such omissions will likely incur some
marking subtraction. In addition to any such item-specific subtraction, the SPP Oral
marking calls for a separate down-marking for failure to follow the fundamental
rule of the time limit.

The final marking element for Delivery is persuasiveness. Admittedly somewhat

subjective, but nonetheless important, the persuasiveness element addresses the
question “did the student convince me?”

Academic style
An oral presentation style is less rigidly formal than that required of a manuscript.
The SPP Oral “academic style” marking should be adjusted accordingly. As
examples, liberal use of abbreviations and incomplete sentences are among t he
most useful tools to reduce slide clutter and improve a presentation. The SPP oral
may also find it useful to incorporate items such as media inserts ( e.g. a short video
clip of a mass-casualty incident), that would not normally be part of the SPP Paper
or Supplement.

Markers are requested to rate your academic style as a gestalt; in this way, SPP Oral
marking is similar to that for the SPP Paper. But for the SPP Oral, allowances may
be reasonable for presentations that effectively employ “less academic ” means of
conveying messages.

One final point with regard to academic style: there is no marking for “references.”
Your SPP Oral presentation is not required to have citations or references. The reason
for this is that key citations will have been included in the SPP Paper or SPP
Supplement. If you need to acknowledge references you may do so using a short
format. No format is “required” but you may use brief parentheticals (e.g. Smith,
2020) and of course you should be consistent. (The absence of citations is a bit
different from what may occur at a scientific meeting. The departure from that
aspect of “meeting form” is intended to make things a bit easier on you, since
you’re co-submitting the SPP Oral with a fully referenced SPP Paper. )
Examples of SPP Oral problems leading to lower marks
- Title too long
- Font too small
- Information overload (on a given slide)
- Important findings from SPP Paper (or less commonly, SPP Supplement) not
included
- Tables too large/complicated
- Figures not self-explanatory
- Speaking pace far too fast (or far too slow)
- Long pauses between slides
- Monotone “reading the material” style
- Having too many slides, thus rushing to get through them to meet time limit
- Overt non-scientific/informal tone
- Exceeding 20-minute time limit

Examples of SPP Oral characteristics warranting higher marks

- Favorable modification of a lengthy SPP Paper title for SPP Oral
- Exact same font/size/margins throughout
- Individual slides each amenable to quick scan to get key ideas (no long-text
passages)
- Includes all key material without extraneous information
- Tables and figures simple and self-explanatory
- Smooth delivery, seamless transitions (across points and across slides)