Research Proposal Deck

About this template

For explaining a design, not results

Ten slides for an ethics committee submission, a grant kick-off or a lab protocol review – the moment before any data exists. The cover subtitle reads “from setting the research question to trend analysis, a 10-slide template”, and the agenda runs five lines: research question, sample-size justification, limitations of prior work versus this design, key metrics, trend analysis. A completed study needs far more room for results and discussion than this file offers.

You have to build the recruitment slide yourself

Only two sections come as a divider (“SECTION 01”, “SECTION 02”) plus a body slide (“DETAIL”): research question and sample-size justification. The other three agenda items are a single slide each. Nothing in the agenda covers recruitment or the analysis plan, and half of all review questions land there. Duplicate slides 3 and 4 to add a section on inclusion and exclusion criteria and recruitment channels, and add the agenda line too. The analysis plan can ride on the third line of slide 6, and the start schedule can live on the trend slide. The “company / organization” placeholder under each divider should carry the sponsoring institution for a multi-site study.

Three lines of sample-size justification

Slide 6 is introduced as showing by calculation how many subjects are needed, and its defaults read 80% power at alpha 0.05, 210 per arm assuming 15% attrition, and block randomisation stated explicitly. Keep those three roles – statistical assumptions, sample and attrition, allocation method – and change the values. Two arms of 210 equal the 420 target enrolment on the KPI card, so edit both together.

• Single-center prospective cohort, e.g. “80% power, two-sided alpha 0.05, effect size 0.35 from prior work.”
• Sample and attrition, e.g. “120 per arm; recruiting 150 per arm assuming 20% attrition.”
• Allocation, e.g. “Block randomisation by site, allocation concealed through a central web system.”
• Slide 4 keeps one line each for the PICO statement, the gap across 12 prior studies, and the split between primary and secondary hypotheses. There is no room on the slide for the 12 references, so prepare them as an appendix.

Mark the figures as targets

Slide 8 defaults to 420 target enrolment, 24 months, 4 sites and 80% power. None is observed yet, so add “target” or “projected” to the labels. Keep the footnote saying the figures are samples to be replaced with real data until your own numbers are in. Slide 9 shows 12, 46, 88 and 24 across review, recruitment, follow-up and analysis, captioned as an index with base 100 – but the values look like durations, so change the unit to weeks or months and check that the four stages add up to the 24 months on the card. The bars are shapes, so editing the number leaves the height unchanged; scale each by value / largest value.

What reviewers flag first

• Stating projected results as findings: write “sample size assumes a 31% reduction”, not “reduces by 31%”.
• Omitting inclusion and exclusion criteria, which sends every question to that gap.
• Leaving the left column of slide 7 as shipped – single center with 80 or fewer subjects, eight-week follow-up, before-and-after with no control. Name the studies with authors and years, or the right column (four centers and 340 subjects, 52 weeks, randomised control arm) has nothing to answer.
• The 340 subjects on slide 7 contradicting the 420 target enrolment on slide 8. Either distinguish enrolment target from analysable sample, or fix one of the two.
• Not defining what each of the four sites does – sponsor, recruiting site, sample analysis – which stalls multi-site review.
• Ending on the two-line closing slide. Put the review date and the response deadline there so the next step is attached.