Professional blog

Laboratory Diagnostic Presentation Review Guidelines

The diagnostic assay presentation is an opportunity to demonstrate your knowledge and understanding of current laboratory techniques for the detection of viral, prion, parasitic and fungal pathogens. You will provide a synopsis of their life cycle, diagnosis, and treatment in a review of recent literature (<10 years old). In this assessment you will compare two pathogens which infect similar tissues or organ systems and examine the laboratory techniques used for their detection together with descriptions of transmission, pathogenesis, and treatment of these pathogens.

You must choose two different pathogen types, for example a virus and a bacteria, a fungus and a parasite, or a prion and a virus but you are not limited to these combinations. Examples of a target tissue or organ could be the respiratory tract, gastrointestinal tract, central nervous system, Genito-urinary etc.

To achieve this, you will need to:

1: Identify two suitable pathogens which infect the same tissue or organ. If you need guidance selecting your pathogens, please consult the unit coordinator for guidance.

2: Research the literature on both past & current diagnostic techniques including advances in diagnosis using molecular techniques and providing information on the pathogenesis and treatment of the chosen pathogen.

3: You will design and record a 10-minute (+/- 10%) video presentation for assessment. Upload the completed recording to YouTube as an unlisted video and the URL included in your PowerPoint submission on Moodle.

.

Process Choose a Target Tissue Organ

Choose two different pathogen types which infect the same target tissue/organ, for example a virus and a parasite, a fungus and a parasite, or a bacteria

and a virus which may infect the brain. You are not limited to these combinations.

• Give an introductory background to each pathogen, this should include information on transmission, pathogenesis and treatment.

• Design and record a 10-minute (+/- 10%) video presentation (including PowerPoint presentation) for assessment. a. Compare the similarities between the two pathogens in terms of the laboratory techniques used for their detection together with a

description of transmission, pathogenesis, and treatment of these pathogens. Then provide information on how they differ based on these

characteristics. Include information on use of molecular based tests.

b. Provide a conclusion that draws together the findings and gives a capstone to your assignment.

Instructions

Use PubMed and/or other databases to search for literature relating to the selected pathogens for detection of your chosen bacteria. Read and reference

at least 5 papers (From the last 10 years) for each organism. Use these paper to source your background information and inform your comparisons.

Sample layout

1. Background

2. Transmission, Pathogenesis and Treatment

3. Laboratory Diagnosis

4. Conclusions/future directions

5. References

Assessment Rubric

Excellent Good Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Poor Absent

Background (10 Marks)

Provides a succinct introduction of the

chosen microorganisms and the diseases they

cause. Includes all details relevant to

understanding the clinical significance of

these organisms.

Provides a succinct introduction of the

affected tissues and/or organ system. Provides

all the information required to understand

the disease/disease process.

Provides a succinct introduction of the

chosen microorganisms and the diseases they cause. Includes most

details relevant to understanding the

clinical significance of these organisms.

Provides an introduction

of the affected tissues and/or organ system

that provides most of the information required to

understand the disease/disease process.

Provides a brief introduction of the

chosen microorganisms and the diseases they

cause. Includes sufficient detail relevant to

understanding the clinical significance of these organisms. Briefly

introduces the affected tissues and/or organ system and provides

sufficient information to understand the majority of the disease/disease

process.

Provides limited introduction of the

chosen microorganisms and the diseases they

cause. Includes insufficient detail to

facilitate understanding of the clinical

significance of these organisms. Some

introduction of the affected tissues and/or

organ system, with insufficient detail to

facilitate understanding of the disease/disease

process.

Provides little introduction of the

chosen microorganisms and the diseases they

cause. Includes little to no detail that would

facilitate understanding of the clinical significance of these organisms. Little

introduction of the affected tissues and/or organ system, with little

detail relevant to the

disease/disease process.

No background or details provided

Transmission, Pathogenesis and Treatment (15 marks)

Provides a clear and succinct description of the transmission, pathogenesis and treatment for the chosen organisms including virulence factors, latency, vectors, chemotherapies reservoirs, side effects of treatment, modes of action, modes of

Clearly describes most of the detail relating to transmission, pathogenesis and treatment for the chosen organisms including virulence factors, latency, vectors, chemotherapies reservoirs, side effects of treatment, modes of action, modes of

Describes in sufficient detail to understand the transmission, pathogenesis and treatment for the chosen organisms including virulence factors, latency, vectors, chemotherapies reservoirs, side effects of treatment, modes of action, modes of

Some description of transmission, pathogenesis, and treatment for the chosen organisms. Insufficient detail relating to virulence factors, latency, vectors, chemotherapies reservoirs, side effects of treatment, modes of

Little description of transmission, pathogenesis, and treatment for the chosen organisms. Little detail relating to virulence factors, latency, vectors, chemotherapies reservoirs, side effects of treatment, modes of action, modes of

Provides no description of the transmission, pathogenesis and treatment including virulence factors, latency, vectors, chemotherapies reservoirs, side effects of treatment, modes of action, modes of transmission etc.

transmission etc. Provides all relevant details.

transmission etc. Provides most relevant details.

transmission etc. Provides sufficient detail.

action, modes of transmission etc. Provides insufficient detail to facilitate understanding.

transmission etc. Provides little detail.

Laboratory Diagnosis (15 Marks)

Provides a succinct and detailed description of the techniques used for laboratory diagnosis of the chosen pathogens including all relevant detail.

Provides a detailed description of the techniques used for laboratory diagnosis of the chosen pathogens including most relevant details.

Provides sufficient description of the techniques used for laboratory diagnosis of the chosen pathogens including most relevant details but with some omissions.

Provides a basic description of the techniques used for laboratory diagnosis of the chosen pathogens with many omitted details.

Provides little description of the techniques used for laboratory diagnosis of the chosen pathogens with major omissions.

Provides no description of the techniques used for laboratory diagnosis of the chosen pathogens.

Analysis (25 Marks)

Provides a strong and detailed comparison of both organisms and the diagnostic tools used for each, with a detailed examination of the strengths and weaknesses of these assays compared to what has been done previously and to other, alternative methods. Clearly contextualises the expected results for these assays and the associated quality assurance data presented (accuracy, sensitivity etc.). Notes whether the assays are qualitative or quantitative in each study.

Provides a clear comparison of both organisms and the diagnostic tools used for each. Examined in enough detail to facilitate evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of these assays compared to what has been done previously and to other, alternative methods. Provides context for the expected results for these assays and the quality assurance data presented (accuracy, sensitivity etc.). Notes whether the assays are qualitative or quantitative in each study.

Provides a comparison of both organisms and the diagnostic tools used for each. Examined in sufficient detail to allow a basic evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of these assays compared to what has been done previously and to other, alternative methods. Provides some context for the expected results for these assays and the quality assurance data presented (accuracy, sensitivity etc.). Intermittently notes whether the assays are qualitative or quantitative in each study.

Provides a basic comparison of both organisms and the diagnostic tools used for each. Examined in insufficient detail to allow more than a cursory evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of these assays compared to what has been done previously and to other, alternative methods. Provides little context for the expected results. Little detail about quality assurance data (accuracy, sensitivity etc.) and little information relating to the studies themselves.

Provides little comparison of both organisms and the diagnostic tools used for each. Examined in insufficient detail to allow evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of these assays compared to what has been done previously and to other, alternative methods. Provides no context for the expected results. Very sparse detail about quality assurance data (accuracy, sensitivity etc.) and very sparse information relating to the studies themselves

Provides no comparison of the organisms and the diagnostic tools used for each. No examination of the strengths and weaknesses of these assays compared to what has been done previously and to other, alternative methods. Provides no overview of the results related to these assays and the quality assurance data presented (accuracy, sensitivity etc.) and whether the assays are qualitative or quantitative in each study.

PowerPoint Design (10 Marks)

The content of the Presentation is concise and separated into appropriate sections (Title, background

transmission, pathogenesis, treatment, Laboratory Diagnosis, Conclusions/future directions & References). The presentation has high reader impact with good use of colour and font styles and sizes. Material is carefully and logically structured resulting in clarity of information and message.

The content of the Presentation is separated into appropriate sections (Title, background

transmission, pathogenesis, treatment, Laboratory Diagnosis, Conclusions/future directions & References). The presentation has good reader impact with appropriate use of colour and font styles and sizes. Material is carefully and logically structured resulting in clarity of information and message.

The content of the Presentation is mostly separated into appropriate sections (Title, background

transmission, pathogenesis, treatment, Laboratory Diagnosis, Conclusions/future directions & References). The presentation has average reader impact with some use of colour and font styles and sizes that could be improved. Material is logically structured.

The content of the Presentation is separated into inappropriate sections or illogically structured in places. The presentation has limited reader impact with some use of colour and font styles and sizes that could be greatly improved. Material is not logically structured.

The content of the Presentation is not separated into appropriate sections and is illogically structured. The presentation is confused, limiting reader impact. Use of colour and font styles and sizes are inappropriate. Material is in a confused structured.

The bulk of the content is absent or incomprehensible.

PowerPoint Visuals (10 Marks)

All diagrams and photographs used are of high quality and the sources diagrams or photographs are referenced appropriately. No spelling or grammatical errors.

All diagrams and photographs used are of good quality and the sources diagrams or photographs are referenced appropriately. No spelling or grammatical errors.

All diagrams and photographs used are of average quality and the sources diagrams or photographs are referenced appropriately. 1-2 spelling or grammatical errors.

All diagrams and photographs used are of poor quality and the sources diagrams with some referencing. 3-4 spelling or grammatical errors.

Very little use of visual elements. Visuals are of very poor quality. 5-6 spelling or grammatical errors.

No use of visual elements. 6< spelling or grammatical errors.

Oral Presentation (10 Marks)

Excellent presentation. Well- paced with excellent explanations and with a strong flow. No fidgeting. Strong eye contact with the camera.

Very good presentation. Very good pacing and explanations. Very cohesive flow. No fidgeting. Good eye contact with the camera.

Good presentation. Good pacing with good explanations and with a cohesive flow. Little fidgeting. adequate eye contact with the camera.

Presentation is low quality. Pacing suffers in parts with insufficient explanation and with intermittently interrupted flow. Some noticeable fidgeting. Intermittent failures maintaining eye contact with the camera.

Poor quality presentation. Pacing is consistently poor with cursory explanations and with a severely disrupted flow. Constant fidgeting. Little eye contact with the camera.

Extremely poor-quality presentation. Pacing and explanations are of very poor quality. A consistent flow is absent. No video included. No attempt to maintain eye contact with the camera.

References (5 Marks)

Excellent use of intext referencing throughout. All references correctly formatted and collated. All papers referenced.

Good use of intext referencing throughout with 1-2 minor omissions. All references correctly formatted and collated.

Adequate use of intext referencing with 3-4 errors. All references correctly formatted with only minor errors.

Reference list provided with some use of intext referencing throughout. 5-6 errors. <10 references used

Reference list provided with >6 errors. Poor intext referencing. Use of course materials in place of journal articles.

No attempt to reference made. No reference list included.