期刊
BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
卷 18, 期 -, 页码 -出版社
BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12874-018-0490-1
关键词
Discussion; Conclusion; Writing; Bias; Causality; Mechanism; Assumptions; Statistician; Substantive researcher; Bayes
资金
- German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) [01ER1303, 01ER1703]
Background: When discussing results medical research articles often tear substantive and statistical ( methodical) contributions apart, just as if both were independent. Consequently, reasoning on bias tends to be vague, unclear and superficial. This can lead to over-generalized, too narrow and misleading conclusions, especially for causal research questions. Main body: To get the best possible conclusion, substantive and statistical expertise have to be integrated on the basis of reasonable assumptions. While statistics should raise questions on the mechanisms that have presumably created the data, substantive knowledge should answer them. Building on the related principle of Bayesian thinking, we make seven specific and four general proposals on writing a discussion section. Conclusion: Misinterpretation could be reduced if authors explicitly discussed what can be concluded under which assumptions. Informed on the resulting conditional conclusions other researchers may, according to their knowledge and beliefs, follow a particular conclusion or, based on other conditions, arrive at another one. This could foster both an improved debate and a better understanding of the mechanisms behind the data and should therefore enable researchers to better address bias in future studies.
作者
我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。
推荐
暂无数据