ReviewInternational journal of endocrinology and metabolism2019
The Principles of Biomedical Scientific Writing: Discussion.
Review in International journal of endocrinology and metabolism, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- The reporting of CONSORT items and key feasibility elements in pilot and feasibility studies in hip and knee arthroplasty is suboptimal: a methodological survey.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2026Review
- Healthcare professionals' knowledge and attitude toward Human papillomavirus vaccination: A critical appraisal of research evidence.Journal of education and health promotion · 2025Review
- How We Write a Manuscript Discussion.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2023Article
- 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
- The Principles of Biomedical Scientific Writing: Title.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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The discussion section of a scientific paper is supposed to interpret and elucidate the significance of the study findings, highlight current knowledge available on the research problem being investigated, and explain the novel aspects emerging from the findings of the study in moving the field forward. A well-written discussion should provide clear "statements of the main findings", "possible explanations and implications", "strengths and weaknesses of the study and other studies", "unanswered questions", and "suggestions for future research". The authors also need to clarify the external validity of the findings and show how the findings can be generalized. In this review, we focus on the function, content, and organization of the "discussion section" of a hypothesis-testing paper. Beyond providing the most important principles and common strategies for organizing the discussion section, we also discuss metadiscourse, scientific explanation (reasoning and contextualization), and models of scientific explanation.
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.