Abstract

Sometimes written as an afterthought, the abstract is of extreme importance as in many

instances this section is what is initially previewed by readership to determine if the
remainder of the article is worth reading. This is the authors opportunity to draw the reader
into the study and entice them to read the rest of the article. The abstract is a summary of the
article or study written in 3rd person allowing the readers to get a quick glance of what the
contents of the article include. Writing an abstract is rather challenging as being brief,
accurate and concise are requisite. The headings and structure for an abstract are usually
provided in the instructions for authors. In some instances, the abstract may change slightly
pending content revisions required during the peer review process. Therefore it often works
well to complete this portion of the manuscript last. Remember the abstract should be able to
stand alone and should be as succinct as possible.14

Introduction

The introduction is one of the more difficult portions of the manuscript to write. Past studies
are used to set the stage or provide the reader with information regarding the necessity of the
represented project. For an introduction to work properly, the reader must feel that the
research question is clear, concise, and worthy of study.

A competent introduction should include at least four key concepts: 1) significance of the
topic, 2) the information gap in the available literature associated with the topic, 3) a literature
review in support of the key questions, 4) subsequently developed purposes/objectives and
hypotheses.9

Review of Literature

When constructing a review of the literature, be attentive to “sticking” or “staying true” to

your topic at hand. Don't reach or include too broad of a literature review. For example, do
not include extraneous information about performance or prevention if your research does not
actually address those things. The literature review of a scientific paper is not an exhaustive
review of all available knowledge in a given field of study. That type of thorough review
should be left to review articles or textbook chapters. Throughout the introduction (and later
in the discussion!) remind yourself that a paper, existing evidence, or results of a paper cannot
draw conclusions, demonstrate, describe, or make judgments, only PEOPLE (authors) can.
“The evidence demonstrates that” should be stated, “Smith and Jones, demonstrated that….”

Conclude your introduction with a solid statement of your purpose(s) and your hypothesis(es),
as appropriate. The purpose and objectives should clearly relate to the information gap
associated with the given manuscript topic discussed earlier in the introduction section. This
may seem repetitive, but it actually is helpful to ensure the reader clearly sees the evolution,
importance, and critical aspects of the study at hand See Table 1 for examples of well‐stated
purposes,
Methods

The methods section should clearly describe the specific design of the study and provide clear
and concise description of the procedures that were performed. The purpose of sufficient
detail in the methods section is so that an appropriately trained person would be able to
replicate your experiments.15 There should be complete transparency when describing the
study. To assist in writing and manuscript preparation there are several checklists or
guidelines that are available on the IJSPT website. The CONSORT guidelines can be used
when developing and reporting a randomized controlled trial.16 The STARD checklist was
developed for designing a diagnostic accuracy study.17 The PRISMA checklist was developed
for use when performing a meta‐analyses or systematic review.18 A clear methods section
should contain the following information: 1) the population and equipment used in the study,
2) how the population and equipment were prepared and what was done during the study, 3)
the protocol used, 4) the outcomes and how they were measured, 5) the methods used for data
analysis. Initially a brief paragraph should explain the overall procedures and study design.
Within this first paragraph there is generally a description of inclusion and exclusion criteria
which help the reader understand the population used. Paragraphs that follow should describe
in more detail the procedures followed for the study. A clear description of how data was
gathered is also helpful. For example were data gathered prospectively or retrospectively?
Who if anyone was blinded, and where and when was the actual data collected?

Although it is a good idea for the authors to have justification and a rationale for their
procedures, these should be saved for inclusion into the discussion section, not to be discussed
in the methods section. However, occasionally studies supporting components of the methods
section such as reliability of tests, or validation of outcome measures may be included in the
methods section.

The final portion of the methods section will include the statistical methods used to analyze
the data.19 This does not mean that the actual results should be discussed in the methods
section, as they have an entire section of their own!

Most scientific journals support the need for all projects involving humans or animals to have
up‐to‐date documentation of ethical approval.20 The methods section should include a clear
statement that the researchers have obtained approval from an appropriate institutional review
board.

Results, Discussion, and Conclusions

In most journals the results section is separate from the discussion section. It is important that
you clearly distinguish your results from your discussion. The results section should describe
the results only. The discussion section should put those results into a broader context. Report
your results neutrally, as you “found them”. Again, be thoughtful about content and structure.
Think carefully about where content is placed in the overall structure of your paper. It is not
appropriate to bring up additional results, not discussed in the results section, in the
discussion. All results must first be described/presented and then discussed. Thus, the
discussion should not simply be a repeat of the results section. Carefully discuss where your
information is similar or different from other published evidence and why this might be so.
What was different in methods or analysis, what was similar?

As previously stated, stick to your topic at hand, and do not overstretch your discussion! One
of the major pitfalls in writing the discussion section is overstating the significance of your
findings4 or making very strong statements. For example, it is better to say: “Findings of the
current study support….” or “these findings suggest…” than, “Findings of the current study
prove that…” or “this means that….”. Maintain a sense of humbleness, as nothing is without
question in the outcomes of any type of research, in any discipline! Use words like “possibly”,
“likely” or “suggests” to soften findings.12

Do not discuss extraneous ideas, concepts, or information not covered by your

topic/paper/commentary. Be sure to carefully address all relevant results, not just the
statistically significant ones or the ones that support your hypotheses. When you must resort
to speculation or opinion, be certain to state that up front using phrases such as “we therefore
speculate” or “in the authors' opinion”.

Remember, just as in the introduction and literature review, evidence or results cannot draw
conclusions, just as previously stated, only people, scientists, researchers, and authors can!

Finish with a concise, 3‐5 sentence conclusion paragraph. This is not just a restatement of
your results, rather is comprised of some final, summative statements that reflect the flow and
outcomes of the entire paper. Do not include speculative statements or additional material;
however, based upon your findings a statement about potential changes in clinical practice or
future research opportunities can be provided here.

CONCLUSIONS
A few suggestions have been offered in this commentary that may assist the novice or the
developing writer to attempt, polish, and perfect their approach to scholarly writing.

References
1. Nahata MC. Tips for writing and publishing an article. Ann Pharmaco. 2008;42:273‐
277 [PubMed]

2. Dixon N. Writing for publication: A guide for new authors. Int J Qual Health Care.
2001;13:417‐421 [PubMed]