The Discussion template presents a common structure used as a way to engage readers of peer-reviewed articles. Of importance, the structure to be presented here is one among many structure that might work, but this is certainly not the only one.
The length of each section in this template is not stipulated, primarily because length will depend on the target journal and what might have been established as socially acceptable within that local scientific community. This means that all four text blocks presented below could be written in a single paragraph or in two pages.
- Start by claiming the novelty of your article, thus aligning it with your previous statement in the Introduction about the existence of gap
- Summarize the three or four main results from your study in a couple lines. The goal here is to let the reader know what you think are the main points they should focus on from everything that was presented within the Results section. It will also serve as a roadmap for the upcoming sections in the Discussion where each of these three or four main results will discussed one by one.
- To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review describing the factors that affect compliance with CPGs for Pap smear screening among healthcare providers in Africa. Our review identified 11 studies that cited factors for noncompliance with Pap smear protocols including Insufficient Knowledge/Lack of Awareness, Negligence/Misbeliefs, Psychological Reasons, Time/Cost Constraints and Insufficient Infrastructure/Training. (Asonganyi, 2013)
- Our results indicate clear genetic divergence between Italian wolves and individuals from other European countries. We found differentiation between profiles from northern and southern Europe, with individuals from the Carpathian Mountains in central Europe displaying intermediate genotypes. Our results also reveal high genetic diversity within Belarus that exceeded the variation observed in neighbouring countries. (Stronen, 2013)
- This systematic analysis of randomized dietary intervention trials suggests that a moderate increase in dairy food consumption has no or small effects on the major cardiovascular and metabolic risk factors [50]. (Benatar, 2013)
- Discuss one of the three or four main results in a separate paragraph, and in each of these paragraphs explain the reasons why your results might have occurred. Explaining here means the causes you believe led to the results, and not only a repetition of the results themselves.
- Within the explanation you will want to include results from others that might or not be aligned with your own results
- When you include results from others that are not aligned with yours, discuss the possible reasons why this might be the case. Possible explanations might include different samples, different or faulty methodology, among others
- How ESX-3 contributes to iron uptake is an open question. Components of the ESX-3 system may facilitate transit of Fe3+-carboxymycobactin through the cell wall to reach IrtAB in the plasma membrane, a secreted ESX-3 substrate may be required for proper iron-siderophore uptake or ESX-3 may create the right cell surface environment for iron uptake. Those are all possibilities to be tested. (Serafini, 2013)
- While this can be explained, at least to some extent, by the effect of Zhangfei on the ability of Xbp1s to initiate transcription of UPR genes, we are puzzled how Zhangfei suppressed levels of the spliced Xbp1 transcripts themselves. The bLZip transcription factor responsible for Xbp1 transcription has not been unambiguously identified however our earlier data [26] as well as that of others show that activation of the UPR leads to an increase in spliced Xbp1 mRNA without a corresponding increase in unspliced transcripts. (Zhang, 2013)
- In the second to last paragraph, point to limitations in your study.
- Right after each limitation, hedge that limitation by stating what was done to minimize the limitation or why it might not be so important to the point of significantly affecting your results
- The first drawback is the retrospective nature of the work, which could lead to selection bias in determining the treatment modalities. However, we consecutively enrolled subjects during the study period and the baseline characteristics between the two groups were very similar, differing only in the proportion of HCCs with viral etiologies and previous history of treatment for HCC. (Lee, 2013)
- Although the current study cannot unequivocally delineate the differential impact of the host or the pathogen, the overall perfusion kinetics in the Doppler flowmetry and FITC-lectin studies of both infected and non-infected allografts were similar. If A. fumigatus were the driving force behind the microvascular ischemia, we would have anticipated that that the infected animals would have had lower perfusion at all time points compared to non-infected allografts. (Hsu, 2013)
- Provide suggestions for future researchers in terms of design, samples, methods, or any other aspect that you see as being the next step.
- If your results might affect practice beyond just other research studies, state how you these results should be implemented.
- Further large studies are needed, and future research should focus on prenatal or early life exposure, as well as combined effect of prenatal and adolescent or adulthood exposure. (Béranger, 2013)
- Further clarification of FOXP3-functions may facilitate the development of novel therapeutic approaches targeting LCK-FOXP3 pathway to suppress cancer malignancy for personalized and selective targeted medicine. (Nakahira, 2013)
- In conclusion, in this report we provided evidence that school absenteeism could be a useful approach for disease surveillance in resource limited settings where traditional surveillance systems are difficult to implement. (Cheng, 2013)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
