( RESEARCH FOR THE CLINICIAN J Evaluating Published Research: Discussion/Conclusions

P ublished research articles usually follow a standard

format: a literature search; identifi­cation of the problem; a statement of purpose; descriptions of the research sample, methods, and equipment; and a discussion or conclusion sec­tion. * Each section builds on the pre­vious one, providing an evolutional continuum that follows through to a logical finale. The final section of a research article provides important information for readers and should be carefully considered when evalu­ating the study.

Augmenting the more technical results part of the article, the discus­sion or conclusiont section should accurately and without bias frame the statistical results in an appropri­ate and nontechnical context. In ad­dition to interpreting results, this section should clearly relate the re-

*When an abstract is included, a section of text dedicated to summarizing the re­search study may not be required, de­pending on the journal's editorial phi­losophy.

t"Discussion" and "conclusion" may be used interchangeably when describing the final text section of a research paper. It is unusual to find both discussion and conclusion sections in a published article. Preference for one term over the other is often at the discretion of the editorial staff of a publication.

sults of the study to the original re­search question, thereby completing the investigative loop. Authors may also explain why they think their study turned out as it did, and they may point out how it differs from or agrees with previously published re­search. This is especially true when the results obtained differ from ex­pectations. Limitations of the study are often included in a discussion section, as are suggestions for future study.

Unfortunately, authors some­times take too much latitude in in­terpreting their results, leaving read­ers to wonder if they completely misunderstood the technical results or misread the purpose of the study. An often-told witticism beautifully illustrates the problem of erroneous conclusions:

A researcher teaches a frog to jump on command. He then anesthetizes one of the frog's legs and tells the frog to jump. The frog jumps. Next, the researcher anesthetizes a second leg and again commands the frog to jump. Again the frog jumps. This scenario continues until all four legs of the frog are anesthetized, when, upon command, the frog does not jump. Whereupon, as a result of his study, the researcher concludes that the frog is deaf.

When evaluating published research, it is important to compare carefully the technical results of the study

246 JOURNAL OF HAND THERAPY

with the authors' stated conclusions. If the two do not match technically or logically, then readers should question why. Whether unintentional or intentional, subtle or blatant, au­thor bias is inappropriate in scientific reporting. Incongruity between re­sults and conclusions is usually iden­tified in the review and vetting pro­cesses of professional journals. How­ever, bias can and sometimes does defy the scrutiny of reviewers and editorial staff, especially when the particular bias is a commonly ac­cepted tenet. Ultimately, it is the con­sumer, therapist or surgeon, who must decide the appropriateness of the authors' conclusions. This is not a task to be undertaken lightly, for research conclusions often directly influence patient treatment.

Understanding the purpose of each section of published articles is critical to improving hand therapy research and clinical investigation. The identification of consistencies and inconsistencies between the re­sults and the discussion/conclusion sections of a research article is but one of the many integrated methods for assessing the validity of pub­lished studies.

Elaine Ewing Fess, MS,OTR,FAOTA,CHT

Correspondence and reprint requests to Elaine Ewing Fess, MS, OTR, FAOTA, CHT, Hand Research, 65 Eagle Creek Court, Zionsville, IN 46077.