Overview
Write a discussion section for my senior thesis on my research:
The main objective of the discussion is to explain the meaning of the results. (What does it all mean?)
This section should be structured as if it were a natural flow of ideas and should start with a simple statement of the key findings and whether they are consistent with the study objectives enunciated in the last paragraph of the introduction. The research's strengths and limitations and what the study adds to current knowledge should then be addressed. Through logical arguments, the authors should convert the relations of the variables stated in the results section into mechanistic interpretations of cause and effect using the present tense as these relations do exist at present. In addition, they should describe how the results are consistent or not with similar studies and discuss any confounding factors and their impact. They should avoid excessive wordiness and other commonly made errors such as (i) including information unrelated to the stated purpose of the article; (ii) repeating detailed data previously presented in the Results section; (iii) not interpreting and not critically analyzing results of other studies reviewed and cited but rather just repeating their findings; (iv) presenting new data or new details about techniques and enrolment criteria, and (v) overstating the interpretation of the results. Another common mistake is to forget to criticize the research described in the manuscript by highlighting the limitations of the study. A scientific article's value is enhanced by showing the strengths and weak points of the evidence reported in the paper. The last paragraph of the discussion is the conclusion. The conclusion is a separate, last paragraph that should present a concise and clear “take home” message avoiding repetition of concepts already expressed. The authors should also avoid excessive generalizations of the implications of the study and remember that except for RCT there can only be testable hypotheses and observed associations, rather than rigorous proof of cause and effect. Possible implications for current clinical practice or recommendations should be addressed only if appropriate. Finally, the areas for possible improvement with future studies should be addressed avoiding ambiguous comments such as “there is a need for further research” and if there is a real need for further studies on the topic it is strongly advisable to be specific about the type of research suggested.