Discussion: Key Results (18)

The items from STROBE state that you should report:
- Summarize key results with reference to study objectives


Discussion

The discussion section addresses the central issues of validity and meaning of the study (Hess, 2004). Surveys have found that discussion sections are often dominated by incomplete or biased assessments of the study’s results and their implications, and rhetoric supporting the authors’ findings (Horton, 2002, 2002). Structuring the discussion may help authors avoid unwarranted speculation and over-interpretation of results while guiding readers through the text (Docherty & Smith, 1999; Perneger & Hudelson, 2004). For example, Annals of Internal Medicine (Internal Medicine, 2007) recommends that authors structure the discussion section by presenting the following: (1) a brief synopsis of the key findings; (2) consideration of possible mechanisms and explanations; (3) comparison with relevant findings from other published studies; (4) limitations of the study; and (5) a brief section that summarizes the implications of the work for practice and research. Others have made similar suggestions (Docherty & Smith, 1999; Hess, 2004). The section on research recommendations and the section on limitations of the study should be closely linked to each other. Investigators should suggest ways in which subsequent research can improve on their studies rather than blandly stating ‘more research is needed’ (Maldonado & Poole, 1999; Phillips, 2001). We recommend that authors structure their discussion sections, perhaps also using suitable (Vandenbroucke et al., 2007)

Explanation

It is good practice to begin the discussion with a short summary of the main findings of the study. The short summary reminds readers of the main findings and may help them assess whether the subsequent interpretation and implications offered by the authors are supported by the findings. (Vandenbroucke et al., 2007)


Examples

“We hypothesized that ethnic minority status would be associated with higher levels of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors, but that the associations would be explained substantially by socioeconomic status (SES). Our hypothesis was not confirmed. After adjustment for age and SES, highly significant differences in body mass index, blood pressure, diabetes, and physical inactivity remained between white women and both black and Mexican American women. In addition, we found large differences in CVD risk factors by SES, a finding that illustrates the high-risk status of both ethnic minority women as well as white women with low SES.” (Vandenbroucke et al., 2007; Winkleby et al., 1998)


Resources

Do you know of any good guidance or resources related to this item? Suggest them via comments below, Twitter, GitHub, or e-mail.

References

Docherty, M., & Smith, R. (1999). The case for structuring the discussion of scientific papers: Much the same as that for structuring abstracts. BMJ, 318(7193), 1224–1225. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.318.7193.1224

Hess, D. R. (2004). How to write an effective discussion. Respiratory Care, 49(10), 1238–1241. http://rc.rcjournal.com/content/49/10/1238

Horton, R. (2002). The Hidden Research Paper. JAMA, 287(21), 2775–2778. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.287.21.2775

Internal Medicine, A. of. (2007). Information for authors. http://www.annals.org/shared/author_info.html

Maldonado, G., & Poole, C. (1999). More research is needed. Annals of Epidemiology, 9(1), 17–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1047-2797(98)00050-7

Perneger, T. V., & Hudelson, P. M. (2004). Writing a research article: Advice to beginners. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 16(3), 191–192. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzh053

Phillips, C. V. (2001). The economics of ’more research is needed’. International Journal of Epidemiology, 30(4), 771–776. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/30.4.771

Vandenbroucke, J. P., Elm, E. von, Altman, D. G., Gotzsche, P. C., Mulrow, C. D., Pocock, S. J., Poole, C., Schlesselman, J. J., & Egger, M. (2007). Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration. Epidemiology, 18(6), 805–835. https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181577511

Winkleby, M. A., Kraemer, H. C., Ahn, D. K., & Varady, A. N. (1998). Ethnic and Socioeconomic Differences in Cardiovascular Disease Risk Factors: Findings for Women From the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988-1994. JAMA, 280(4), 356–362. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.4.356