Download as PDF, PPTX
Writing a Manuscript_ESJ_PDF.pdf
- 1. How to writea high-quality scientific Paper: Pearls & Pitfalls Mohamed Aly, MD, Ph D Neurosurgery consultant Prince Mohamed Ben Abdelaziz Hospital, Riyadh, KSA Associate Member of AOSpine Knowledge forum trauma
- 2. Outline Introduction General tips pfwriting How to write each section Writing Toolbox Final remarks
- 3. Writing vs. Writing process Research question Literaturereading and analysis Data collection Data analysis Writing
- 4. Understand the context Reviewaricle Research article More 2500-3500 Word limit Less expert Expert Audience More detilaed Concise Style of writing Background Research question > back ground Main focus
- 5. Message Logical flowBrevity GENERAL TIPS: How to tell your story?
- 6. Answer Research Question More details Literature review Focus onTake-Home Message
- 7. Why People losethe track? Do not tell people ALL what you know, tell them what they need to know More is not always More?
- 8.
- 9.
- 10. Logical flow: differentlevels Literature Research Q Proposal Topic sentence Literature Explanation Manuscript Each section Paragraph
- 11. Brevity: Less isMore More room for more ideas Easy reading Reader Author
- 12. A possible explanationis that we used different criteria to define Ligamentous injury in CT and MRI. This rate of fracture classifcation in this study is lower than previously reported In this study, we reported that MRI can change the fracture classifcation in only 12% of cases Winklhofer showed that MRI Can change fracture classifcation in 25% of cases. Pizones on the other hand showed that MRI would change fracture classifcation in 30%. The relatively lower rate of change in fracture classifcation reported herein (12% Vs. 25-30% previously) may be attributed to the use of…(Winkhofler et al, Pizones at al) Literature Findings Compare Why?
- 13.
- 14.
- 15. Topic Research Q Proposal 1st Paragraph 2ndParagraph 3rd Paragraph General Specific
- 16. Targeted literature reviews Technique Targeted Importanceof topic Focused Content Lay background for future discussion Relevant Cite recent reviews/ Systematic reviews Limited Educate audience about topic Cone-shaped Move Quickly from general to specific Brevity Synthesis of literature Brief
- 17. 1st paragraph /literaturereview Lumbar disc disease is a major health problem(Reference) There is ample evidence that Discectomy is effective for medically intractable cases(References). Open discectomy has been the standard procedure, but Microdiscectomy has been introduced in 1980s as less invasive procedure. Specific General General Specific Lay background
- 18. 2nd paragraph=Research gap=Surgicaldissection Despite theoretical advantages of microdiscectomy, its superiority over open discectomy has not been established (References). Most studies comparing open vs discectomy are retrospective nonrandomized controlled studies in small number of patients. This may be attributed to the challenges of conducting RCT in surgical patients. General Explanation Methodology Hypothesis Hypothesis
- 19. 3rd paragraph=Proposal: Areyou filling the gap? KNOWLEDGE GAP Most studies comparing open vs discectomy are retrospective nonrandomized controlled studies PROPOSAL to compare the efficacy and complications of open vs microdiscectomy using a randomized controlled design What we know? What do we not know?
- 20.
- 21. Methods General Structure Study design/Setting/Ethical statement Patients(inclusion/Exclusion criteria) Procedures Outcome measures Statistical analysis Flow=Chronological
- 22. Methods pitfall :How much details is too much? • Key details Vs. unnecessary • Cite established methodology • Figures What reviewer look for? Reproducibility?
- 23. Methods: Figure andFlow chart reviewer look for?
- 24.
- 25. Results structure Demographic data Result1 (Clinical outcome open Vs. Microdis) Results 2 (Complications open Vs. Microdis Result 3 ( Cost open Vs. Microdis) More important Less important
- 26. Results: Brevity vs.Comprehensiveness?
- 27. Results /ConciseText • Microdiscectomy wasassociated with a statistically significant rate of favorable outcome compared to open ( 87% vs. 78%, P<.001). Focus on 1ry Q • Most of the complications did not show a significant difference between microdiscectomy and open disectomy ( See Table 1) except wound infection ( 2% Micro vs. 5% open, P<0.001) Trend • Microdiscectomy was more effective compared to open ( 87% vs. 78%, P<.001). Do not interpret
- 28. Discussion……Metasynthesis of your findings….not blind literature review
- 29. Last paragraph Strength& Limitations Implications ClinicalImpact/future prespective Literature review Study context First paragraph Key findings/interpretation/Novelty
- 30. First paragraph=Master Scene!! Answerthe Q !! lay language Interpretation/ implications Novelty/Strength REPEAT INTRODUCTION
- 31. First paragraph/Example Key findings interpretations Themain findings of this study is that Microdiscectomy is more effective ( favorable outcome 87% vs 78%) , safer, and more cost effective than open discectomy. Novelty To our knowledge, this the largest RCT to date that compares Microdiscectomy to open discectomy
- 32. Why your results arebetter than previous studies? How can your results be used in clinical practice? Are your results generalizable to different settings?
- 33. 2nd paragraph= literaturereview answer Qs • First Study? Why no other studies • Largest study? What was the sample size • Better results? Why? Better methods? Larger sample Questions Answer relevant questions 2nd Paragraph
- 34. Why to acknowledgeLimitations? Why not? Increase chance of acceptance Address limitations Mix up strengths & limitations Use arguments & counter-arguments
- 35.
- 36. • Key findings •Implications • Limitations • Future prespective
- 37. ABSTRACT=Version of story Lastbut not least
- 38.
- 39. Writing tool-box • Paraphrasingsoftware • Grammar/spelling check • Reference management • Flow chart/ figures
- 41.
- 42. Take away today Use appropriate structure 01 MakeA road road map!! 02 Use paraphrasing tool 03 Use figures/tables 04 Read to write 05
- 43.
- 44.