Orden de prelación de pagos efectuados por el emisor

The final step in the methods section will be to mention how data was analyzed and pre- sented in the results section. The sample size calculation method and the software used for data analysis should be mentioned. Statements mentioned should be specific to the parameters studied and the outcome variables. There are various methods for data collec- tion, and data analysis is usually done at the end of the study. Researchers also simultane- ously analyze data to observe for patterns throughout the data collection phase [22].

Accurate data analysis is essential for ensuring data integrity, and inappropriate statistical analysis may mislead the readers and create a negative public perspective of research [23]. There are different statistical tests which could be used depending on the types of data and number of samples. Depending on the number of variables and the design of study, the type of statistical test can be decided. The explanation of the statistical analysis of the primary outcome should be before that of the secondary outcome [11]. A signifi- cant “P value” will be essential for concluding whether the difference is statistically sig- nificant. Generally, P value <0.05 is statistically significant. The common statistical tests used can be just mentioned, whereas any new method could be described or mentioned with references. Figure 6.1 depicts the components of the methods section.

Data analysis methods used

Research protocol followed, the outcomes and their evaluation

Variables evaluated _{Instruments used}Reagents and Intervention _{(Primary/Secondary)}Outcome

Ethical Principles

Ethical Clearance Informed Consent Clinical Trial Registry Funding informations

Participants/subjects used in the study

Inclusion and

Exclusion criteria Sampling Technique Randomization Procedures Blinding methods

Study setting, time span and study design

Single/multi-centric based/community Hospital based study

Descriptive or Analytical Experimental/ Observational

Reporting guidelines for various study

designs

58

6.9

Conclusion

Scientific writing is an art which has to be developed, and providing a clear and concise methods section is part of the process. The methods section of a scientific research paper is the most significant as it determines the validity of the study. Mentioning the rationale or assumptions involved in the various procedures of the study is a vital component. Reliability is a crucial component of the methods section which implies the extent to which the same protocol could be replicated by another researcher. Precise and accurate presentation of the various subjects, materials, preparations in the study, and presentation of the various steps of the research pro- tocol in the chronological order, along with the final data analysis comprises the methods section of a research paper.

Scenario

Scenario 1:

There are many assays involved in my research under each objective of the study. Each of them has various steps. Is it essential to describe all the individual steps of an experimental protocol?

(a) Mention the steps of each assay separately.

(b) Need not describe every step but just mention the name of the test.

(c) If it is a standard method, then give the name of the test with the reference num- ber, and if it is not, then explain the steps of the method.

Just give an outline of the assays without elaboration.

References

1. Hoogenboom B, Manske R.  How to write a scientific article. Int J  Sports Phys Ther. 2012;7:512–7.

2. Kallet RH.  How to write the methods section of a research paper. Respir Care. 2004;49:1229–32.

3. Lin P, Kuo Y.  A guide to write a scientific paper for new writers. Microsurg Wiley. 2012;32:80–5.

4. Shah D. Material and methods: how will I do it? How to write the thesis and thesis protocol. New Delhi: Jaypee Brothers; 2014. p. 75–82.

5. Maxwell JA. Methods: what will you actually do? Qualitative research design: an interactive approach. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2005. p. 79–104.

6. Xu L, Bao HG, Si YN, Han L, Zhang R, Cai MM, et al. Effects of adiponectin on acute lung injury in cecal ligation and puncture-induced sepsis rats. J Surg Res. 2013;183:752–9. 7. Zeiger M. Essentials of writing biomedical research papers. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill

(Health professions division); 2000. p. 176–219.

8. Van Way CW. Writing a scientific paper. Nutr Clin Pract. 2007;22:636–40.

9. Le Gall JR, Lemeshow S, Saulnier F. A new simplified acute physiology score (SAPS II) based on a European/North American multicenter study. JAMA. 1993;270:2957–63. 10. Bergner M, Bobbitt RA, Carter WB, Gilson BS. The sickness impact profile: development and

final revision of a health status measure. Med Care. 1981;19:787–805.

11. Arora SK, Shah D.  Writing methods: how to write what you did? Indian Pediatr. 2016;53:335–40.

12. Porta M, Greenland S, Last JM.  A dictionary of epidemiology. 5th ed. New  York: Oxford University Press; 2008.

13. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig LM, et al. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD Initiative. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138:40–4.

14. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG.  The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. Ann Intern Med. 2001;134:657–62.

15. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000097.

16. General Assembly of the World Medical Association. World medical association declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. J Am Coll Dent. 2014;81:14–8.

17. Zeiger M. Essentials of writing biomedical research papers. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1991. p. 113–38.

18. Trease GE, Evans WC.  Pharmacognosy. 15th ed. London: Saunders Publishers; 2002. p. 42–4. 221–9, 246–9, 304–6, 331–2, 391–3.

19. Sofowora A. Medicinal plants and traditional medicine in Africa. 2nd ed. Ibadan: Sunshine House/Spectrum Books Ltd; 1993. Screening Plants for Bioactive Agents. p. 134–56. 20. Parida S, Singh TU, Thangamalai R, Narasimha Reddy CE, Panigrahi M, Kandasamy K,

et  al. Daidzein pretreatment improves survival in mouse model of sepsis. J  Surg Res. 2015;197:363–73.

21. Wichtermann KA, Baue AE, Chaudry IH. Sepsis and septic shock—a review of laboratory models and a proposal. J Surg Res. 1980;29:189–201.

22. Savenye W, Robinson R. Using qualitative research methods in higher education. J Comput High Educ. 2005;16:65–95.

61 © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2017

S.C. Parija, V. Kate (eds.), Writing and Publishing a Scientific Research Paper, DOI 10.1007/978-981-10-4720-6_7