Medknow罗丹期刊业务发展经理Wolters Kluwer HealthLe....pptVIP

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Put the results in context State: What was the answer to your research question What you found and what else is known about the topic The strengths AND weaknesses of your approach – was your methodology good enough What are the areas for potential new research Discussion commonly has the following structure: Beginning : State major findings Middle: Put current research in context Implication of current work Limitations Directions for further research End: Summary (conclusion) IMRaD: Discussion Tips: Present the most important result in the first paragraph Provide a brief scholarly review of the literature and place your findings in perspective Acknowledge limitations Provide potential explanations and clinical implications of your work Have a medical scientist who was not involved with your work review it before submission IMRaD: Discussion Medknow Common shortcomings Too long, unfocused Too much repetition of results Fails to interpret results and place them in context Selectively cites favourable papers Fails to reconcile opposing findings of others Offers no explanation of unexpected results Limitations not acknowledged Fails to distinguish statistical significance from biological significance, i.e. a large ‘p’ value does not always imply important clinical difference Far exceeds the data in the ‘Results’ section IMRaD: Discussion Medknow Titles Perhaps your only chance to make a good impression The title might be all a reader EVER reads Include what is unique or important about your study Include your major finding Indicative titles give the subject matter/purpose: “Comparison of morning versus afternoon cecal intubation rates” Declarative titles are informative and give the conclusion: “Suppression of the JNK Pathway by Induction of a Metabolic Stress Response Prevents Vascular Injury and Dysfunction” Medknow Titles Simple and concise, but informative Accurate and specific States the su