|LETTER TO EDITOR
|Year : 2019 | Volume
| Issue : 1 | Page : 70
Writing effective discussion contributes to literature and improves research quality: Saving the scientific communication
Department of Clinical Psycology, PsyClinic, Delhi, India
|Date of Web Publication||24-May-2019|
Dr. Tarun Verma
PsyClinic, B-3/141, 2nd Floor, Paschim Vihar, Delhi - 110 063
Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None
|How to cite this article:|
Verma T. Writing effective discussion contributes to literature and improves research quality: Saving the scientific communication. Ann Indian Psychiatry 2019;3:70
|How to cite this URL:|
Verma T. Writing effective discussion contributes to literature and improves research quality: Saving the scientific communication. Ann Indian Psychiatry [serial online] 2019 [cited 2022 Nov 26];3:70. Available from: https://www.anip.co.in/text.asp?2019/3/1/70/259081
Kumar et al. conducted a study on patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) undergoing hemodialysis and explored the incidence of depression and anxiety in an Indian urban hospital. They studied many demographic variables and compared the rates of depression and anxiety across the categories of those variables. Although the study could offer many important insights into these common forms of psychiatric morbidity among CKD patients, the researchers have failed in providing any significant value to literature. Their discussion section lacks the merits of scientific status.
The authors have made several repetitions in writing their findings in the results and discussion section. The study only gives details of the data, but no explanation has been given in the discussion section regarding any crucial findings. The reader may not be able to understand which findings are of value as authors have given no specific emphasis on any findings. The authors have associated their findings with previous studies, but a mere mention of such literature is of no value unless an explanation is given regarding the possible reasons for similarities or differences in literature.
Hess has given a brief and simple outline of elements that should be included in a discussion section. He clearly mentions that a discussion should explain the results that are to be considered important in relation to the research's problem. The reader must get the clear message that the results fit into some conceptual framework and add knowledge to his/her current understanding of the topic. To critically examine the results, a research should present favorable as well as unfavorable literature that can throw light on the topic from alternative perspectives too.
The study does not state the relevance of their findings for the clinical practice. The authors have referred to Cukor et al. in which the discussion has been presented concretely and in a scientific manner. However, Kumar et al. have overlooked certain issues which could help the reader to think broadly. The limitations were also briefly discussed. Sample size and sampling method were not the only limitations. Differences in proportions of individuals existed for many demographic variables such as gender, religion, domicile, and marital status. These differences are sufficient to reduce the generalizability of the findings. Statistical tests were not properly utilized, and many of the findings were discussed based on descriptive statistics which gives an incomplete impression of the study. Şanlı et al. have mentioned that a manuscript should be simple, clear, and effective to fulfil its goal of communicating the problem of the study. Confusions and lack of direction to the readers make a good research poor in its content and aims. Research paper is a mode of communication and must contain the basic elements to retain its scientific worth.
Financial support and sponsorship
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
| References|| |
Kumar V, Khandelia V, Garg A. Depression and anxiety in patients with chronic kidney disease undergoing hemodialysis. Ann Indian Psychiatry 2018;2:115-9. [Full text]
Hess DR. How to write an effective discussion. Respir Care 2004;49:1238-41.
Cukor D, Coplan J, Brown C, Friedman S, Cromwell-Smith A, Peterson RA, et al.
Depression and anxiety in urban hemodialysis patients. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2007;2:484-90.
Şanlı Ö, Erdem S, Tefik T. How to write a discussion section? Turk J Urol 2013;39:20-4.