Abstract
It seems that most researchers are already convinced that the Results section is an especially important part of their paper. After all, it is the part where they talk the most about their own work and the least about anything else, so it must be the most important part. Accordingly, many researchers simply present whatever they feel is interesting, in the way they feel is best. But the reality is a little bit different, requiring a bit more humility and social awareness. The Results section is indeed the only part of the paper where you are providing truly new information that no one else already knows, and therefore your Result section is increasing the amount of knowledge available to the scientific and healthcare communities. But if the Results section is somewhat more important than the other sections, the real reason is because the Results section is where most readers will form their judgment about what this particular paper adds to the existing body of knowledge already available in the scientific literature. Thus although you are the expert in your Results section, your role is more akin to that of an expert witness in a court trial, while the readers are the jury who may or may not give weight to your evidence. So it is crucial to write your Results section in a way that is clear, focused, comprehensible, and compelling for the readers.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
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.
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.
Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D; for CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ. 2010; 340: 698-702.
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.
Pocock SJ, Travison TG, Wruck LM. Figures in clinical trial reports: current practice & scope for improvement. Trials. 2007; 8: 36.
Durbin CG Jr. Effective Use of Tables and Figures in Abstracts, Presentations, and Papers. Respir Care. 2004; 49: 1233-1237.
Altman DG, Bland JM. Missing data. BMJ. 2007; 334: 424.
Shih WJ. Problems in dealing with missing data and informative censoring in clinical trials. Curr Control Trials Cardiovasc Med. 2002; 3: 4.
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.
Ibrahim JG, Chu H, Chen M-H. Missing Data in Clinical Studies: Issues and Methods. J Clin Oncol. 2012; 30: 3297-3303.
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.
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
Cummings P, Rivara FP. Reporting Statistical Information in Medical Journal Articles. Arch Pediatr Adolec Med. 2003; 157: 321-324.
Knol MJ, Groenwold RHH, Grobbee DE. P-values in baseline tables of randomised controlled trials are inappropriate but still common in high impact journals. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2011; 19: 231-232.
Assmann SF, Pocock SJ, Enos LE, Kasten LE. Subgroup analysis and other (mis)uses of baseline data in clinical trials. Lancet. 2000; 355: 1064-1069.
Altman DG. Practical Statistics for Medical Research. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press; 1991, 1999.
Wright DB. Making friends with your data: Improving how statistics are conducted and reported. Brit J Educ Psychol. 2003; 73: 123-136.
McGough JJ, Faraone SV. Estimating the Size of Treatment Effects: Moving Beyond P Values. Psychiatry. 2009; 6(10): 21-29.
Sackett DL, Cook RJ. Understanding clinical trials. BMJ. 1994; 309: 755-756.
Citrome L. Compelling or irrelevant? Using number needed to treat can help decide. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2008; 117: 412-419.
Barratt A, Wyer PC, Hatala R, McGinn T, Dans AL, Keitz S, Moyer V, Guyatt G; for Evidence-Based Medicine Teaching Tips Working Group. Tips for learners of evidence-based medicine: 1. Relative risk reduction, absolute risk reduction, and number needed to treat. CMAJ. 2004; 171: 353-358.
Bland M. An Introduction to Medical Statistics, 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015.
Running the numbers. Nat Neurosci. 2005; 8: 123.
Detsky AS, Sackett DL. When Was a ‘Negative Clinical Trial Big Enough? How Many Patients You Needed Depends on What You Found. Arch Intern Med. 1985; 145: 709-712.
Bailar JC III. Science, Statistics, and Deception. Ann Intern Med. 1986; 104: 259-260.
Guyatt G, Jaeschke R, Heddle N, Cook D, Shannon H, Walter S. Basic statistics for clinicians: 2. Interpreting study results: confidence intervals. CMAJ. 1995; 152: 169-173.
Wang R, Lagakos SW, Ware JH, Huner DJ, Drazen JM. Statistics in Medicine―Reporting of Subgroup Analyses in Clinical Trials. NEJM. 2007; 357: 2189-2194.
Burke JF, Sussman JB, Kent DM, Hayward RA. Three simple rules to ensure reasonably credible subgroup analyses. BMJ. 2015; 351: h5651.
Sterne JAC, Smith GD. Sifting the evidence–what’s wrong with significance tests? BMJ. 2001; 322: 226-231.
Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Woodcock J, Brozek J, Helfand M, Alonso-Coello P, Glasziou P, Jaeschke R, Akl EA, Norris S, Vist G, Dahm P, Shukla VK, Higgins J, Falck-Ytter Y, Schünemann HJ; GRADE Working Group. GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence—inconsistency. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64: 1294-1302.
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.
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien P-A. Classification of Surgical Complications: A New Proposal With Evaluation in a Cohort of 6336 Patients and Results of a Survey. Ann Surg. 2004; 240: 205-213.
Doctors and medical statistics. Lancet. 2007; 370: 910.
Cole TJ. Too many digits: the presentation of numerical data. Arch Dis Child. 2015; 100: 608-609.
Altman DG, Bland JM. Presentation of numerical data. BMJ. 1996; 312: 572.
Larson MG. Descriptive Statistics and Graphical Displays. Circulation. 2006; 114: 76-81.
Cohen J. The Earth Is Round (p < .05). Am Psychol. 1994; 49: 997-1003.
Gardner MJ, Altman DG. Confidence intervals rather than P values: estimation rather than hypothesis testing. BMJ. 1986; 292: 746-750.
Braitman LE. Confidence Intervals Assess Both Clinical Significance and Statistical Significance. Ann Intern Med. 1991; 114: 515-517.
Bahrami H. The Value of p-Value. Am J Gastroenterol. 2005; 100: 1427-1428.
Cals JWL, Kotz D. Effective writing and publishing scientific papers, part II: title and abstract. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013; 66: 585.
Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Sultan S, Glasziou P, Akl EA, Alonso-Coello P, Atkins D, Kunz R, Brozek J, Montori V, Jaeschke R, Rind D, Dahm P, Meerpohl J, Vist G, Berliner E, Norris S, Falck-Ytter Y, Murad MH, Schünemann HJ; GRADE Working Group. GRADE guidelines: 9. Rating up the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64: 1311-1316.
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 Results. In: How to Write Better Medical Papers. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02955-5_24
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02955-5_24
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-02954-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-02955-5
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)