Writing a discussion section: how to integrate substantive and statistical expertise

• Main Authors: Michael Höfler, John Venz, Sebastian Trautmann, Robert Miller
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: BMC 2018-04-01
• Series: BMC Medical Research Methodology
• Subjects: Discussion; Conclusion; Writing; Bias; Causality; Mechanism
• Online Access: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12874-018-0490-1

Abstract 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.