Table 4: Discussion

Answering the questions should be done using the same key terms and the same verbs (present tense) which were used when posing the question(s) in the introduction. The answer must be confined to the population studied, for example if the subjects were randomly selected from a population with osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee, generalize to the population with OA knee but not to a population with knee pain from other causes. If more than one question was asked in the introduction, then all questions must be answered in the discussion. All results relating to the question should be addressed, irrespective of whether or not the findings were statistically significant. Answers to the questions that were never asked must not be included.

Support the answer(s) by reference to published work whenever possible. It may be necessary to explain the answer by saying why it is acceptable and how it is consistent or fits in with published ideas on the topic. To defend the answer, explain why it is more satisfactory than other answers and why other answers are unsatisfactory. Where the findings of the study are not in agreement with those of others, this discrepancy should be explained. The sequencing of providing this information is important; discuss the results of the present study before going on to cite the work of others. In the event that unexpected findings occur, decide whether they are of little importance or may be very exciting. Demonstrating a willingness to discuss and evaluate rival explanations for the results highlights a good discussion. To discuss an unexpected finding, begin the sentence by saying it was unexpected and then go on to give the best possible explanation.

Discuss any weakness in study design, for example, extraneous variables that only became apparent during the conduct of the study. Comment on the relative importance of these limitations to the interpretation of the results and how they may affect the validity or the generalisability of the findings. When identifying the limitations, avoid using an apologetic tone and accept the study for what it is. If an author identifies fundamental limitations the reader will question why the study was undertaken (Rudestam and Newton, 1992).

A concise summary of the principal implications of the findings should be provided and regardless of statistical significance, the issue of clinical importance of the findings should be addressed. Where appropriate, make recommendations for clinical practice based on the findings. When discussing the implications, use verbs that suggest some uncertainty such as “suggest”, “imply” or “speculate”. As all research leads to further questions, give recommendations for further research but avoid the temptation to provide a long list and focus instead on one or two major recommendations. When doing so, do not offer suggestions which could have been easily addressed within the study, as this shows there has been inadequate examination and interpretation of the data.

The organisation of the content is important. The discussion should begin by stating answers to the question and supporting the answers with the results. Do not begin with a summary of the results, secondary information (place this after the answer to the question) or indications for further research. At the need, restate the answers to the questions and indicate the importance of the research by stating applications, implications or speculations.

Conclusions

This section should comprise a brief statement of the major findings and implications of the study. It is not the function of this section to summarise the study; this is the purpose of the abstract. New information must not be included in the conclusions.

Acknowledgements

All important contributors should be acknowledged, for example persons who provided statistical or technical advice and assistance; the subjects; those who helped with recruitment’ and personnel who helped with the preparation of the manuscript. If the research was supported by a grant, then the name of the funding body must be included.

Acknowledgements

The authors thanks Dr Diana Hopper and Dr Leon Straker for their help in reviewing this manuscript.

Reference

The above article was subtracted from:

Jenkins S 1995 How to write a paper for a scientific journal. Australian Journal of Physiotherapy 41(4): 285 - 289

Date: 2015-02-28; view: 803