Abstract
Many researchers do not put much thought and effort into writing the Methods section, because they assume that most readers will skip over it anyway. While unfortunately this is often the case, the Methods section is still important, because the people who do read it will use it to judge the quality of the research. For experimental research, they may even use it to try to verify the results by replicating the study. Above all, peer reviewers often scrutinize the Methods section to find flaws in the research that will require revision or justify rejection [1, 2]. If the Methods section is weak or confusing, readers will view the results as unreliable. And a sloppy or senseless Methods section reflects sloppy or senseless research. So it is important to write the Methods section as rigorously as you conducted the actual research.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Byrne DW. Common Reasons for Rejecting Manuscripts at Medical Journals: A Survey of Editors and Peer Reviewers. Sci Ed. 2000; 23 (2): 39-44.
Kassirer JP, Campion EW. Peer Review: Crude and Understudied, but Indispensable. JAMA. 1994; 272: 96-97.
Simera I, Altman DG. Writing a research article that is “fit for purpose”: EQUATOR Network and reporting guidelines. Ann Intern Med. 2009; 151: JC2-2 to JC2-3.
Simera I, Moher D, Hoey J, Schulz KF, Altman DG. A catalog of reporting guidelines for health research. Eur J Clin Invest. 2010; 40: 35-53.
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals. Philadelphia: American College of Physicians; 1978, 2017. Accessed on 12 January 2018 at: www.icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf
World Medical Association. Declaration of Helsinki – Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. Accessed on 10 January 2018 at: https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects/
Haynes RB, Mulrow CD, Huth EJ, Altman DG, Gardner MJ. More Informative Abstracts Revisited. Ann Intern Med. 1990; 113: 69-76.
Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gøtzsche PC, Devereaux PJ, Elbourne D, Egger M, Altman DG. CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ. 2010; 340: c869.
Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Mulrow CD, Pocock SJ, Poole C, Schlesselman JJ, Egger M, for STROBE Initiative. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration. PLoS Med. 2007; 10: e297.
von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP, for the STROBE Initiative. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies. Ann Intern Med. 2007; 147: 573-577.
Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Woodcock J, Brozek J, Helfand M, Alonso-Coello P, Falck-Ytter Y, Jaeschke R, Vist G, Akl EA, Post PN, Norris S, Meerpohl J, Shukla VK, Nasser M, Schünemann HJ; GRADE Working Group. GRADE guidelines: 8. Rating the quality of evidence—indirectness. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64: 1303-1310.
Bagley SC, White, H, Golomb BA. Logistic regression in the medical literature: Standards for use and reporting, with particular attention on one medical domain. J Clin Epidemiol. 2001; 54: 979-985.
Lunt M. Introduction to statistical modelling: linear regression. Rheumatology. 2015; 54: 1137-1140.
Ioannidis JPA, Mulrow CD, Goodman SN. Adverse Events: The More You Search, the More You Find. Ann Intern Med. 2006; 144: 298-300.
Ioannidis JPA, Evans SJW, Gøtzsche PC, O’Neill RT, Altman DG, Schulz K, Moher D; for CONSORT Group. Better Reporting of Harms in Randomized Trials: An Extension of the CONSORT Statement. Ann Intern Med. 2004; 141: 781-788.
Li T, Hutfless S, Scharfstein DO, Daniels MJ, Hogan JW, Little RJA, Roy JA, Law AH, Dickersin K. Standards should be applied in the prevention and handling of missing data for patient-centered outcomes research: a systematic review and expert consensus. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014; 67: 15-32.
Little RJ, D’Agostino R, Cohen ML, Dickersin K, Emerson SS, Farrar JT, Frangakis C, Hogan JW, Molenberghs G, Murphy SA, Neaton JD, Rotnitzky A, Scharfstein D, Shih WJ, Siegel JP, Stern H. The Prevention and Treatment of Missing Data in Clinical Trials. NEJM. 2012; 367: 1355-1360.
Landis SC, Amara SG, Asadullah K, Austin CP, Blumenstein R, Bradley EW, Crystal RG, Darnell RB, Ferrante RJ, Fillit H, Finkelstein R, Fisher M, Gendelman HE, Golub RM, Goudreau JL, Gross RA, Gubitz AK, Hesterlee SE, Howells DW, Huguenard J, Kelner K, Koroshetz W, Krainc D, Lazic SE, Levine MS, Macleod MR, McGall JM, Moxlex RT III, Narasimhan K, Noble LJ, Perrin S, Porter JD, Steward O, Unger E, Utz U, Silberberg SD. A call for transparent reporting to optimize the predictive value of preclinical research. Nature. 2012; 490: 187-191.
Marcus E. Credibility and Reproducibility. Cell. 2014; 159: 965-966.
Collins FS, Tabak LA. NIH plans to enhance reproducibility. Nature. 2014; 505: 612-613.
The long road to reproducibility. Nat Cell Biol. 2015; 17: 1513-1514.
GRADE Working Group. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2004; 328: 1490.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hanna, M. (2019). The Methods. In: How to Write Better Medical Papers. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02955-5_23
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02955-5_23
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-02954-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-02955-5
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)