This document serves as a comprehensive guide for writing the results and discussion sections of a scientific article, emphasizing clarity in presenting data, following journal-specific guidelines, and ensuring logical organization. It details the importance of accurately reporting findings, using appropriate tables and figures, and providing thorough analyses while avoiding common pitfalls such as vague language and overinterpretation. Additionally, it highlights the significance of structuring the discussion to connect results to research questions and future research implications.

1. Dr Zuber Ali Quazi
Senior Resident
DM Neurology
Guide To Write The Results And
Discussion Section Of A
Scientific Article

2. Results
• Report the findings of the study
• Based upon the information gathered as a
result of the methodology applied.
• It simply state the findings, without bias or
interpretation
• Logical sequence.
• Past tense.

3. Data and Results
Data
• Facts
• Raw variable, Mean & SD, %
• Stand alone.
• E.g., mean (SD) fasting blood glucose was
180 (20) mg/dL in patients with type 2
diabetes. Mean fasting blood glucose was
95 (5) mg/dL in non-diabetic subjects.
Result
• Meaning and interpretation of data
• Explain or summarize what the data show
• May have a direction e.g. 2-fold, 10%
increased.
• E.g. mean fasting blood glucose was
significantly higher in patients with type 2
diabetes than in non-diabetic subjects
[180 (20) vs. 95 (5) mg/dL, P = 0.010]

4. Road Map
• PREPARATION
• SELLING YOURSELF
• STRUCTURE
• EFFECTIVE WRITING

5. Where Will the Paper End Up? (Audience)
• You MUST choose a journal.
• Make sure the journal publishes your type of study.
• What the readers already know about this topic and what
they want to know now?
• Read the author guidelines specific for the journal you are
submitting to.

6. How Will I Write It?
(Style)
•Read and follow the journal’s author guidelines and
style guide
•Make sure you’ve followed the guidelines for specific
types of studies:
• RCTs: CONSORT
• Systematic reviews: PRISMA
• Observational Study: STROBE
• Studies of diagnostic accuracy: STARD

7. CONSORT - Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials

8. Result & Discussion part from CONSORT checklist

9. PRISMA - Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

10. PRISMA - Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

11. PRISMA - Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

12. von Elm et al STROBE Initiative. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE)statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies.J Clin Epidemiol. 2008 Apr;61(4):344-9.

13. STARD- STAndards for the Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies

15. • Result should be Congruent.
• Tables
• Appropriate
• Complete for their purpose
• Statistically sound
• Figures
• Appropriate information content
• Complete legend
• Readable
• Briefly explain your results to make your information clear for the readers.
• Make sure there is no mismatch of the table number or the figure number
in text and in figure/tables.

16. Figures and Tables
• Each figure or table should have one stand-alone
message
• Don’t overload figures or tables with numbers or text
• Figures and tables should be entirely understandable
on their own, without reference to the whole paper or
need to read Methods or Results
• Do not discuss what your findings mean in figure
legends
Kliewer MA. Writing it up: A step-by-step guide to publication for beginning investigators. AJR Am J Roentgenol.. 2005;185(3):591–6.

18. Tables :-
• Present specific information or exact values
• Function as reference tools for readers.
• Meant to - Summarize / Organize/ Display data more clearly than words/ Compare groups of data/Facilitate
calculations
• Typically has ≥ 3 interrelated columns and ≥ 3 interrelated rows.
Figures :-
• Comparisons and patterns.
• Functions as analytic tools.
• Pattern of data that are not presentable in text or tables.
• Displaying data more clearly than they can be done in text or tables.
• Summarizing a large amount of data than they can be done in text or tables
• Improving the understanding and locating the specific information easily and rapidly.
Riordan L. Enhancing your manuscript with graphic elements, part 1 & 2 : Tables. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 2013;113(1):54–7.

19. Common elements of the figures (Bahadoran, 2019):
• Figure number
• Figure title
• Figure legend (for example a brief title, experimental/statistical information, or definition of
symbols).
• Data
• Labels

20. • Tables in the result section may contain
several elements (Bahadoran, 2019):
• Table number
• Table title
• Row headings (for example groups)
• Column headings
• Data
• Row subheadings (for example categories
or groups)
• Column subheadings (for example
categories or variables)
• Footnotes (for example statistical
analyses)

22. • Caption to each element consisting of a number and a title
• Avoid abbreviations (title of tables/ legend of figures).
• Table title and Figure legend - brief (sufficient to explain).
• Title- overload with details. (Don’t).
• Distinguish the element from any appendix materials provided at the end
of the manuscript (if placed at the end)
• Element Placement.
• Explicit number for each table, figure, etc.
• Parentheses (within the text).
• Consistent appearance for the elements.
• Use footnotes or captions (unclear data).
• Comparisons - horizontally from left to right
General Tips for Presenting Data in Tables and Figures

25. Don’t (Result)
• Direct the reader to find a specific table or figure without further
explanation.
• Describing every blip in the data.
• Too much data.
• Raw data.
• Do not use “reveal” to state the results because it is a funny word that
suggests something was found perhaps by magic.
• Do not use emotive words to describe the significance of the results, e.g.
interestingly, unfortunately, curiously, remarkably, inexplicably, importantly,
crucially, and critically.
• Do not use the word “level” instead of “concentration.”
Ng KH, Peh WC. Writing the results. Singapore Med J. 2008;49(12):967–8.

26. Discussion
• Interpret & explain the analysis of Result
• Goal of discussion:-
• How they agree with or deviate from the research already reported. Similarities & Differences.
• Analyze---- Explain the meaning ------ Identify the importance/ significance of results.
• Connect the dots between result analysis and aims and objective. ( how study result will explain research questions)
• Backup the result with inference/ argument & relevant citations.
• Findings that agree with others
• Findings that disagree with others and discuss why? ( Sample size/ Methodological/……..
• ….This suggest you know other similar studies, and also space for future potential research.
• If no differences/ New finding:-- state the reason for it.
• Include only those points --- directly relate to the Aims & objectives, ( purpose )
• 3 Sections of discussion:-
1. Overview.
2. Analysis.
3. Interpretation.
• Backup your interpretation.
• Well structured headings and paragraph.
• Relationships among results

27. Don’t ( Discussion)
• Replicate/ restate the result.
• Inconsistent use of words.
• Switching of tenses inappropriately.
• Use of Unnecessary words. E.g., ‘on account of’; ‘due to fact that’….. (Instead use
Because).
• Lecturing about well known facts.
• New data ( other than in Result section)
• Lengthy
• Conclusion that are not substantiated.
• Absolute terms e.g., ‘ this study proves that..’ (Suggest/ indicate that)
• Don't confuse statistical significance with clinical importance
• Never give incidental observations the weight you attach to conclusions based on
hypotheses generated before the study began
Use concrete rather than vague language.
Vague The weather was of an extreme nature on the West
coast.
Concrete California had very cold weather last week.
Use active voice whenever possible.
Active voice means the subject is performing the verb.
Active-Barry hit the ball. Passive-The ball was hit.

28. • Avoid overusing “there is”, “there are”, “it is”, “it was”,
E.g., There is a case of meningitis that was reported in the newspaper.
Correction:- A case of meningitis was reported in the newspaper.
Better:- The newspaper reported a case of meningitis. (Active voice).
• Double negatives
E.g., Incorrect:- He is not unwilling to help. Correct:- He is willing to help.
• Parallel construction.
E.g., Incorrect:- You should check your spelling, grammar, and punctuating.
Correct:- You should check your spelling, grammar, and punctuation.
• If you start a sentence with an action, place the actor immediately after or you will have
created the infamous dangling modifier.
E.g., Incorrect:- While walking across the street, the bus hit her.
Correct:- While walking across the street, she was hit by a bus.
• Place modifiers near the words they modify.
Incorrect:- I have some pound cake Esha baked in my lunch bag.
Correct:- In my lunch bag, I have some pound cake that Esha baked.
• A sentence fragment occurs when you have only a phrase or weak clause but are missing a
strong clause. E.g., of Sentence After the show ended, we got a cup of coffee.

29. • Use straightforward verbs for stating results, e.g. show, indicate,
demonstrate, highlight, identify, detect, observe, find, and confirm
• Use “significant” or “significantly” just for statistical significance
• Be careful about using negative sentences:
• Instead of using double negatives, be straightforward and use positive terms
• Make the sentence clear by omitting negative words or negative sentence
constructions, e.g. “There was no significant interaction…” instead of “We
did not find a statistical interaction ….”
• To show a similarity, a signal to the reader may be used such as “like”,
“alike”, “similar to”, and “the same as”; to show differences, the following
signals can be used: “but”, “while”, “however”, “in contrast”, “more likely
than”, and “less likely than”.
• It may be wise to emphasize what your results do not indicate, discouraging
DO’s

30. • 10. When citing a reference, focus on the ideas, not the
authors.
• Unless the person who reported a result is an important point in a
statement, literature citations should be parenthetical, rather than in the
body of the sentence: “… growth rates of > 80 cm are common in
populations in Alberta (Marx 1982)." rather than “…, Marx (1982) found
growth rates of >80 cm to be common in populations in Alberta.'

31. Some common terms to consider while writing:
• “Our study confirms…..” (Your study may confirm )
• “Our results are consistent with….”
• “Our results contradict…..”
• “Our study differs from….”
• “However, other studies found that….”
• “Our study extends….”
• “Our study adds…… to the results of previous studies…”
• “Our study modifies….”
• “Our study adds to the previous knowledge…”
• “Findings of the current study support….”
• “These findings suggest…”
• “Findings of the current study prove that…”
• “this means that….”.
Glasman-Deal, H. (2010). Science research writing for non-native speakers of English. London, UK: Imperial College Press.

32. •11. Show us don't tell us.
• Rather than telling the reader that a result is interesting or
significant, show them how it is interesting or significant. For
instance, rather than 'The large difference in mean size between
population C and population D is particularly interesting," write
'Mean size generally varied among populations by only a few
centimeters, but mean size in populations C and D differed by 25
cm.“.

33. • 14. Introductions and conclusions are the hardest parts.
• Many technical writers prefer to write their introductions last because it
is too difficult to craft that balance of general context and specific focus
required for a good introduction. If you need to write the introduction
first to set the stage for your own thinking, resist the temptation to
perfect it. The introduction will likely need substantial modification by
the time you have finished the rest of the paper. The same concerns
apply to conclusions, abstracts, and summaries. These components of
the paper are all that many people will read, and you must get your
message across in as direct, crisp, and enticing a manner as possible.

34. • Implications of the study:-
• Contribution
• How can it be applied in practice.
• Suggestion for future research.
• Present tense (Past tense - Results)
Don’t ( Conclusion):-
Vague recommendations

36. LIMITATIONS
• Shortcomings. Should be honest
• Sample size
• Location.
• What did your research not address?
Avoid writing: ‘more research is needed.’
Why Highlight the weaknesses
Hallmark of high quality research is to identify its own shortcoming
It shows the in and out.
Provides a foundation for future research.

37. Extras
• References: cite them accurately, restrict yourself to the key ones, check the journal’s
house style
• Acknowledgements
• Author contributions (who did what)
• Competing interests
• Funding
• Statement regarding ethics committee approval.
• Make a serious effort at editing, rewriting, and fine-tuning before.
• You should avoid abbreviations by writing out the full word (minimum, October, first,
temperature, ...). Exceptions include common terms like ATP and DNA, units of measure
(m, g, cm, °C), and mathematical or chemical formulas. Sentences should never begin
with an abbreviation or an acronym.
• You may wish to introduce an acronym for a term that is repeated often: if your paper
deals with soybeans, Glycine max, you may use the full scientific name once and
substitute G. max thereafter.

38. The Basics
• Avoid long words, long sentences and passive tense: “We
concluded” not “It can be concluded that”
• One or two complex ideas max in one sentence
• Short sentences (average 20 words, never longer than 50
words)
• Cut out unnecessary adjectives
• Avoid jargon, use short and simple words
• Avoid double negatives: “Malaria is not uncommon”

39. Keep a Consistent Order
• Ideas must be well organized
• Each paragraph captures just one topic
• Each sentence has just one idea
• Paragraph structure
The first sentence of each paragraph captures the main
message
Topic sentence should be followed by supporting
sentences
Explicit relationship must exist between sentences
Explicit relationship must also exist between paragraphs
and between sections

40. The Bottom Line: You Will Get
Published If…
• You picked an important research question
• You used the right method to answer it
• You wrote a short, clear account of the study that
followed a tight structure and used effective
writing to convey your message clearly
• You keep in mind that science has become more
cross-disciplinary, but reviewers have not

41. Some of the common reasons the results and discussion
sections might cause reviewers to reject a manuscript are
(Bordage, 2001)
•confusing tables or figures
•inconsistent or inaccurate data
•potential variables that are not reported
•over interpretation/under interpretation of the results

42. Strengths noted :-
Importance or timeliness of the
problem studied.
Excellence of writing.
Soundness of study design.
Flaws warranting Rejection:-
Ignoring the literature.
Designing poor studies
Choosing inappropriate instruments
Writing poor manuscripts

43. What is My Message?
Take-home message.
Study’s importance.

44. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Contributors involved in this research. It may include the following :-
•Authors/Writers
•Colleagues
•Funding Organization/ Donor
•Supervisors
•Administrative personnel
•Reviewers

46. Format 1 :-
This research was supported/partially supported by [Name of
Foundation, Grant maker, Donor].
Format 2:-
The authors thank our colleagues from [Name of the supporting
institution] who provided insight and expertise that greatly assisted
the research.
Format 3 :-
The authors thank [Name Surname, title] for assistance with
[particular technique, methodology], and [Name Surname, position,
institution name] for comments that greatly improved the
manuscript.
Examples :-

50. REFERENCES
1. Bahadoran Z, Mirmiran P, Zadeh-Vakili A, Hosseinpanah F, Ghasemi A. The Principles of Biomedical Scientific
Writing: Results. Int J Endocrinol Metab. 2019 Apr 24;17(2):e92113.
2. Riordan L. Enhancing your manuscript with graphic elements, part 1 & 2 : Tables. J Am Osteopath
Assoc. 2013;113(1):54–7.
3. Lang TA, Secic M, Lang T. How to report statistics in medicine: Annotated guidelines for authors, editors, and
reviewers. ACP Press; 2006.
4. Kliewer MA. Writing it up: A step-by-step guide to publication for beginning investigators. AJR Am J Roentgenol..
2005;185(3):591–6.
5. Ng KH, Peh WC. Writing the results. Singapore Med J. 2008;49(12):967–8.
6. Faber J. Writing scientific manuscripts: Most common mistakes. Dental Press J Orthod. 2017;22(5):113–7.
7. Dogra S. Why your manuscript was rejected and how to prevent it. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol.
2011;77(2):123–7.
8. Peat J, Elliott E, Baur L, Keena V. Results. In: Peat J, editor. Scientific writing: Easy when you know how. John Wiley &
Sons; 2013. pp. 63–85.
9. Browner WS. Publishing and presenting clinical research. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2012.
10. Zeiger M. Tables and figures. In: Zeiger M, editor. Essentials of writing biomedical research papers. McGraw-Hill;
2000. pp. 223–60.
11. Swales JM, Feak CB. Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills. Vol. 1. Ann Arbor, Michigan:
University of Michigan Press; 2004.
12. P. Mark L. Sandercock (2012) How to Write and Publish a Scientific Article, Canadian Society of Forensic Science

51. 1. Cuddy PG, Elenbaas RM, Elenbaas JK. Evaluating the medical literature Part I: Abstract, Introduction, Methods. Ann
Emerg Med 1983;12:549-55.
2. Elenbaas JK, Cuddy PG, Elenbaas RM. Evaluating the medical literature Part III: Results and discussion. Ann Emerg Med
1983;12:679-86.
3. Eger EI. A template for writing a scientific paper. Anesth Analg 1990;70:91-6. https://journals.lww.com/anesthesia-
analgesia/Citation/1990/01000/A_Template_for_Writing_a_Scientific_Paper.16.aspx
4. Sessler DI, Shafer S, Writing Research Reports. Anesth Analg 2018;126:330-7.
5. Freeman J. How to Choose the Right Chart - A Complete Chart Comparison (rev. 12/15/2021). Accessed 5/17/2022 from
https://www.edrawsoft.com/chart/choose-right-chart.html
6. Johnson SH. Avoiding the "school paper style" rejection. Nurse Anesthesia 1993;4(3):130-5.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1750-4910.1991.tb00266.x
7. Elenbaas RM, Elenbaas JK, Cuddy PG. Evaluating the medical literature Part II: Statistical analysis. Ann Emerg Med
1983;12:610-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0196-0644(83)80205-4

52. THANK YOU

53. Evaluate Your
Sources
• Refer to the notes section below for
guidelines on this topic.