Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

How to Write Better Medical Papers pp 143–151Cite as

The Results

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  2. 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Pocock SJ, Travison TG, Wruck LM. Figures in clinical trial reports: current practice & scope for improvement. Trials. 2007; 8: 36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Durbin CG Jr. Effective Use of Tables and Figures in Abstracts, Presentations, and Papers. Respir Care. 2004; 49: 1233-1237.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Altman DG, Bland JM. Missing data. BMJ. 2007; 334: 424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Shih WJ. Problems in dealing with missing data and informative censoring in clinical trials. Curr Control Trials Cardiovasc Med. 2002; 3: 4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Ibrahim JG, Chu H, Chen M-H. Missing Data in Clinical Studies: Issues and Methods. J Clin Oncol. 2012; 30: 3297-3303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 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

  14. Cummings P, Rivara FP. Reporting Statistical Information in Medical Journal Articles. Arch Pediatr Adolec Med. 2003; 157: 321-324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Altman DG. Practical Statistics for Medical Research. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press; 1991, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Wright DB. Making friends with your data: Improving how statistics are conducted and reported. Brit J Educ Psychol. 2003; 73: 123-136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. McGough JJ, Faraone SV. Estimating the Size of Treatment Effects: Moving Beyond P Values. Psychiatry. 2009; 6(10): 21-29.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Sackett DL, Cook RJ. Understanding clinical trials. BMJ. 1994; 309: 755-756.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Citrome L. Compelling or irrelevant? Using number needed to treat can help decide. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2008; 117: 412-419.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Bland M. An Introduction to Medical Statistics, 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Running the numbers. Nat Neurosci. 2005; 8: 123.

    Google Scholar 

  25. 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Bailar JC III. Science, Statistics, and Deception. Ann Intern Med. 1986; 104: 259-260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 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.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Burke JF, Sussman JB, Kent DM, Hayward RA. Three simple rules to ensure reasonably credible subgroup analyses. BMJ. 2015; 351: h5651.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Sterne JAC, Smith GD. Sifting the evidence–what’s wrong with significance tests? BMJ. 2001; 322: 226-231.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  33. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Doctors and medical statistics. Lancet. 2007; 370: 910.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Cole TJ. Too many digits: the presentation of numerical data. Arch Dis Child. 2015; 100: 608-609.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Altman DG, Bland JM. Presentation of numerical data. BMJ. 1996; 312: 572.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Larson MG. Descriptive Statistics and Graphical Displays. Circulation. 2006; 114: 76-81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Cohen J. The Earth Is Round (p < .05). Am Psychol. 1994; 49: 997-1003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Gardner MJ, Altman DG. Confidence intervals rather than P values: estimation rather than hypothesis testing. BMJ. 1986; 292: 746-750.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Braitman LE. Confidence Intervals Assess Both Clinical Significance and Statistical Significance. Ann Intern Med. 1991; 114: 515-517.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Bahrami H. The Value of p-Value. Am J Gastroenterol. 2005; 100: 1427-1428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Cals JWL, Kotz D. Effective writing and publishing scientific papers, part II: title and abstract. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013; 66: 585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 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.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Mercury Medical Research & Writing, New York, NY, USA

    Michael Hanna

Authors
  1. Michael Hanna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation