The Principles of Biomedical Scientific Writing: Results

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

The “results section” of a scientific paper provides the results related to all measurements and outcomes that have been posted earlier in the materials and methods section. This section consists of text, figures, and tables presenting detailed data and facts without interpretation and discussion. Results may be presented in chronological order, general to specific order, most to least important order, or may be organized according to the topic/study groups or experiment/measured parameters. The primary content of this section includes the most relevant results that correspond to the central question stated in the introduction section, whether they support the hypothesis or not. Findings related to secondary outcomes and subgroup analyses may be reported in this section. All results should be presented in a clear, concise, and sensible manner. In this review, we discuss the function, content, and organization of the “results section,” as well as the principles and the most common tips for the writing of this section.

Related collections

Most cited references 35

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias

Kerry Dwan, Douglas G. Altman, Juan A. Arnaiz … (2008)

Background The increased use of meta-analysis in systematic reviews of healthcare interventions has highlighted several types of bias that can arise during the completion of a randomised controlled trial. Study publication bias has been recognised as a potential threat to the validity of meta-analysis and can make the readily available evidence unreliable for decision making. Until recently, outcome reporting bias has received less attention. Methodology/Principal Findings We review and summarise the evidence from a series of cohort studies that have assessed study publication bias and outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials. Sixteen studies were eligible of which only two followed the cohort all the way through from protocol approval to information regarding publication of outcomes. Eleven of the studies investigated study publication bias and five investigated outcome reporting bias. Three studies have found that statistically significant outcomes had a higher odds of being fully reported compared to non-significant outcomes (range of odds ratios: 2.2 to 4.7). In comparing trial publications to protocols, we found that 40–62% of studies had at least one primary outcome that was changed, introduced, or omitted. We decided not to undertake meta-analysis due to the differences between studies. Conclusions Recent work provides direct empirical evidence for the existence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. There is strong evidence of an association between significant results and publication; studies that report positive or significant results are more likely to be published and outcomes that are statistically significant have higher odds of being fully reported. Publications have been found to be inconsistent with their protocols. Researchers need to be aware of the problems of both types of bias and efforts should be concentrated on improving the reporting of trials.

0 comments Cited 449 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Article: not found

Basic statistical reporting for articles published in biomedical journals: the "Statistical Analyses and Methods in the Published Literature" or the SAMPL Guidelines.

Thomas Lang, Douglas G. Altman (2015)

0 comments Cited 126 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Negativity towards negative results: a discussion of the disconnect between scientific worth and scientific culture

Natalie Matosin, Elisabeth Frank, Martin Engel … (2014)

ABSTRACT Science is often romanticised as a flawless system of knowledge building, where scientists work together to systematically find answers. In reality, this is not always the case. Dissemination of results are straightforward when the findings are positive, but what happens when you obtain results that support the null hypothesis, or do not fit with the current scientific thinking? In this Editorial, we discuss the issues surrounding publication bias and the difficulty in communicating negative results. Negative findings are a valuable component of the scientific literature because they force us to critically evaluate and validate our current thinking, and fundamentally move us towards unabridged science.

0 comments Cited 71 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

All references

Author and article information

Contributors

Zahra Bahadoran

Parvin Mirmiran

Azita Zadeh-Vakili

Farhad Hosseinpanah

Asghar Ghasemi

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): Int J Endocrinol Metab

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Int J Endocrinol Metab

Journal ID (doi): 10.5812/ijem

Journal ID (publisher-id): Kowsar

Title: International Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism

Publisher: Kowsar

ISSN (Print): 1726-913X

ISSN (Electronic): 1726-9148

Publication date (Electronic): 24 April 2019

Publication date Collection: April 2019

Volume: 17

Issue: 2

Electronic Location Identifier: e92113

Affiliations

[1 ]Nutrition and Endocrine Research Center, Research Institute for Endocrine Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

[2 ]Department of Clinical Nutrition and Diet Therapy, Faculty of Nutrition Sciences and Food Technology, National Nutrition and Food Technology Research Institute, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

[3 ]Cellular and Molecular Endocrine Research Center, Research Institute for Endocrine Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

[4 ]Obesity Research Center, Research Institute for Endocrine Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

[5 ]Endocrine Physiology Research Center, Research Institute for Endocrine Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Author notes

[* ]Corresponding Author: Endocrine Physiology Research Center, Research Institute for Endocrine Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. Email: ghasemi@ 123456endocrine.ac.ir

Article

DOI: 10.5812/ijem.92113

PMC ID: 6635678

PubMed ID: 31372173

SO-VID: 705e8384-4cfa-4f21-a72b-23041443a081

License:

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits copy and redistribute the material just in noncommercial usages, provided the original work is properly cited.

The Principles of Biomedical Scientific Writing: Results

Read this article at

Abstract

Related collections

Scientific Ocean Drilling Expedition Research Results

Most cited references 35

Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias

Basic statistical reporting for articles published in biomedical journals: the "Statistical Analyses and Methods in the Published Literature" or the SAMPL Guidelines.

Negativity towards negative results: a discussion of the disconnect between scientific worth and scientific culture

Author and article information

Contributors

Journal

Affiliations

Author notes

Article

History

Categories

Comments

Comment on this article

Similar content 29

Cited by 14

Most referenced authors 544