ReviewInternational journal of endocrinology and metabolism2018
The Principles of Biomedical Scientific Writing: Introduction.
Review in International journal of endocrinology and metabolism, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Principles of Biomedical Scientific Writing: Citation.International journal of endocrinology and metabolism · 2020Review
- The Principles of Biomedical Scientific Writing: Abstract and Keywords.International journal of endocrinology and metabolism · 2020Review
- How to write that paper.Journal of hip preservation surgery · 2020Article
- The Principles of Biomedical Scientific Writing: Title.International journal of endocrinology and metabolism · 2019Review
- The Principles of Biomedical Scientific Writing: Discussion.International journal of endocrinology and metabolism · 2019Review
- The Principles of Biomedical Scientific Writing: Results.International journal of endocrinology and metabolism · 2019Review
- The Principles of Biomedical Scientific Writing: Materials and Methods.International journal of endocrinology and metabolism · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A well-written introduction of a scientific paper provides relevant background knowledge to convince the readers about the rationale, importance, and novelty of the research. The introduction should inform the readers about the "problem", "existing solutions", and "main limitations or gaps of knowledge". The authors' hypothesis and methodological approach used to examine the research hypothesis should also be stated. After reading a good introduction, readers should be guided through "a general context" to "a specific area" and "a research question". Incomplete, inaccurate, or outdated reviews of the literature are the more common pitfalls of an introduction that may lead to rejection. This review focuses on the principles of writing the introduction of an article and provides a quick look at the essential points that should be considered for writing an optimal introduction.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.