What ASCO Visitors Need to Understand First
The first visual layer should answer a simple question: Why does this result matter to the professional walking past the booth?
Before approving that first layer, the team should be able to answer three questions:
What clinical problem, study, or patient population is being discussed?
What is the primary conclusion?
Why is that conclusion relevant to the ASCO visitor?
Study design, endpoint tables, subgroup charts, references, and limitations still matter, but they do not all belong at aisle level. If visitors must read those details before they understand the clinical point, the hierarchy is working in reverse.
Internal teams may view several datasets, indications, or messages as equally important. That does not mean they need equal visual weight. One aisle-facing conclusion should establish relevance first. Supporting evidence can appear after the visitor chooses to look more closely.
A three-level evidence hierarchy separates the primary conclusion, supporting evidence, and detailed clinical review.
Three Levels of Clinical Evidence
Clinical evidence is easier to follow when each layer has a distinct role:
Primary conclusion: establishes why the evidence matters.
Supporting evidence: shows why the conclusion is credible.
Detailed review: gives interested medical or scientific visitors access to the full context.
Level 1 — Primary Conclusion
This is the message a visitor should understand first. It should identify the clinical problem, study or patient context, and main conclusion without requiring someone to read a complete chart or methods summary.
Treatment, diagnostic, or service relevance can appear here, but the full evidence set should not.
Level 2 — Supporting Evidence
Once the main point is clear, selected endpoints, key charts, performance measures, and concise study context can support it.
This layer should strengthen the conclusion without giving every result the same visual importance.
Level 3 — Detailed Review
Complete charts, subgroup data, methods, references, limitations, and additional context belong in a deeper review layer.
These details may be handled on screens, in printed materials, or through discussion with medical or scientific staff.
The hierarchy should remain consistent throughout the booth:
Primary conclusion → Supporting evidence → Detailed review
Stable conclusions belong on booth graphics, while complex charts and changing datasets are better suited to screens and guided discussion.
When Multiple Indications or Datasets Share One Booth
When several indications, studies, or product lines share one booth, a common mistake is to give each of them the same visual weight. That may feel balanced internally, but it forces visitors to decide for themselves where to begin.
Equal internal importance does not require equal visual weight.
A booth can organize several evidence sets in three practical ways:
Lead with one primary indication and place the wider portfolio in a supporting layer.
Organize several solutions around one shared clinical problem.
Use a simple portfolio map, then provide separate evidence points for deeper review.
The same problem becomes more visible in diagnostics and precision oncology, where biomarker evidence, analytical results, and clinical interpretation need to remain connected without being merged into one information layer. This relationship is part of the wider ASCO diagnostics and precision oncology booth planning scenario.
A larger booth will not correct an unclear evidence hierarchy; more walls and screens may simply make the conflict more visible. Instead, establish one entry message, show how the remaining indications or datasets relate to it, and give each deeper evidence set a defined place for review.
Graphics, Screens, or Discussion: Where Each Type of Data Belongs
Each format should do a different job. Booth graphics establish the clinical point quickly. Screens are better for information that requires closer review, movement, or controlled updates. Printed materials and staff discussions can carry details that would overwhelm the main display.
Clinical content | Best medium | Why it belongs there |
|---|---|---|
Primary clinical conclusion | Aisle-facing graphics | Establishes relevance before visitors stop |
Study or patient context | Secondary graphics | Explains who or what the evidence applies to |
Selected endpoints or key results | Secondary graphics or guided screen | Supports the main conclusion without dominating it |
Complex charts and subgroup data | Screen or guided review | Allows closer reading without crowding the wall |
Changing datasets | Digital display | Makes controlled updates easier |
Workflow animation | Screen or live demo | Shows steps that static graphics cannot explain as well |
References and limitations | Screen, literature, or professional discussion | Preserves context without competing with the headline |
Detailed scientific questions | Discussion with appropriate staff | Allows interpretation and follow-up questions |
A screen should not repeat the backwall simply because digital space is available. It should reveal something that static graphics cannot explain as well.
Printed materials also need a defined purpose, such as carrying references, methods, or information visitors may want to review after the conversation.
Clinical conclusions, supporting evidence, and changing datasets need different visual roles. The same hierarchy should carry through the booth graphics and screen content, so the wall, digital displays, and printed materials do not present different versions of the same evidence.
A 20x20 layout can separate the aisle-facing conclusion, supporting evidence screen, discussion area, and concealed literature storage.
How the Evidence Hierarchy Fits a 20x20 Booth
In a 20x20 booth, the evidence hierarchy has to work within a compact footprint. The aisle-facing wall can carry the primary conclusion, while a secondary screen or panel supports closer review without forcing every chart into the first visual layer.
A screen or guided review point should sit where a small group can stop without blocking the entrance or interrupting another conversation. Nearby seating can support questions about methods, limitations, subgroup findings, or clinical context.
The layout works best when each area has one clear purpose:
Aisle-facing wall: primary conclusion
Secondary panel or screen: supporting evidence
Demo or guided review point: complex data
Discussion area: detailed medical or scientific questions
Concealed storage: literature and updated materials
The goal is not to create several small content zones. It is to let visitors move from the main clinical point to deeper evidence without losing the reading order.
One Approved Data Version Across Every Booth Asset
A booth can look visually consistent while presenting different data versions across the wall, screen, handout, and meeting deck. This often happens when each asset follows a separate approval schedule or when late updates reach only part of the exhibit team.
Before production, create one content matrix covering every public and meeting asset:
Asset | Primary owner | What must be verified | Where it appears |
|---|---|---|---|
Booth graphics | Medical or brand lead | Final conclusion, context, references, and approved artwork | Backwall or evidence panel |
Screen presentation | Content or digital lead | Approved deck, charts, data source, and revision status | Demo or evidence station |
Printed literature | Medical or regulatory lead | Print-ready file, references, and release status | Counter or concealed storage |
Demo content | Product or technical lead | Approved build, data environment, and tested workflow | Demo station |
Theater or meeting slides | Program owner | Final presentation, source files, and approved data version | Theater or meeting room |
One person should own the final cross-check. That review should confirm that conclusions, endpoints, study context, references, and limitations remain consistent across every format.
When new data arrives late, the team needs a clear decision: update all affected assets, withdraw outdated material, or retain the existing approved version. Partial updates create the greatest risk because visitors may receive different information depending on where they look.
Frequently Asked Questions
Should clinical trial data be placed on booth graphics or screens?
Use booth graphics for the stable clinical conclusion, essential study context, and the result visitors should understand first. Screens are better for complex charts, changing datasets, subgroup detail, and guided review, while interpretation and detailed questions belong in professional discussion.
How much clinical data should be visible from the aisle?
The aisle-facing layer should identify the study subject, primary conclusion, and why the result is clinically relevant. Visitors should not need to read full methods, endpoint tables, references, or limitations before understanding the main point.
How should multiple clinical datasets be organized in one ASCO booth?
Start with one shared clinical problem, primary indication, or simple portfolio map. Give each dataset a secondary entry point through a screen, evidence panel, or guided discussion rather than placing every chart at the same visual level.
From Clinical Data to the Full ASCO Booth Plan
Clinical evidence is only one layer of the exhibit. The broader ASCO booth planning process also needs to account for demonstrations, meeting space, staff flow, booth size, and McCormick Place execution.
