This document provides guidance on writing the discussion section of a manuscript. The discussion section is meant to interpret findings in the context of previous literature, explain how the results have changed understanding, and connect to the introduction and objectives. The discussion should be organized into sections on key results, limitations, interpretation, generalizability, and conclusions. When writing the discussion, authors should address whether the results answered the research questions, agree or disagree with previous findings, consider alternative explanations, and discuss next steps in practice and research. The same key terms and verb tenses used in the objectives should be used in the discussion.

1. Wri$ng the Discussion
Lars Åke Persson MD PhD
lars.persson@lshtm.ac.uk
Dagu Scien$fic Wri$ng Workshop,
Gondar, Ethiopia, July 10-14, 2017

2. Discussion sec*on of a
manuscript: func*on
• To interpret findings in
light of what was already
known about the subject
• Explain our new
understanding aOer your
results
• Will connect to
introduc$on, the literature
cited, the objec$ves
phrased: how did the
results change the
situa$on?

3. Discussion sec*on of a
manuscript: Organiza*on
• KEY RESULTS Summarize key results
with reference to study objec$ves
• LIMITATIONS Discuss limita$ons of the
study, taking into account sources of
poten$al bias or imprecision. Discuss
both direc$on and magnitude of any
poten$al bias
• INTERPRETATION Give a cau$ous
overall interpreta$on of results
considering objec$ves, limita$ons,
mul$plicity of analysis, results from
similar studies, and other relevant
evidence
• GENERALISABILITY (may be part of
limita$ons paragraph) Discuss the
generalisability, i.e. external validity, of
the study results
• CONCLUSION Concluding the discussion,
maybe policy implica$ons, maybe need
of further research

4. Discussion sec*on of a
manuscript: basic ques*ons
and principles (1)
• Do the results provide answers
to your research ques$ons/
address your objec$ves?
• Do the findings agree with what
others have found, to theory (if
appropriate)?
• If not: Alterna$ve explana$ons?
Weakness in your design, in
others’ studies?
• Given your conclusions, what is
our new understanding of the
subject area?
• If warranted, what is the next
step in prac$ce and in research?

5. Discussion sec*on of a
manuscript: basic ques*ons
and principles (2)
• Use the same key terms and the same
verb tense (present tense) as in aims/
objec$ves
• Discuss all key findings (also “no
difference”, “not significant”, “not
expected” etc.)
• Discuss and evaluate conflic$ng
explana$ons of results (good papers do
that)
• Please remember that sta$s$cal
significance is not a measure of “effect”.
Evaluate the public health importance
of your findings
• Be brief and concise! Avoid general and
vague words and phrases that may be
misunderstood! Avoid empty words and
phrases!
hhps://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/
sec$on/1/2/