Skip to main content
Log in

Discussion: The heart of the paper

  • Art and Science of Writing a Paper
  • Published:
Indian Pediatrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The discussion section explains the meaning of results to the readers, and addresses the implications of the findings emanating from the particular study. Authors should compare their results with previous reports, and attempt to explain similarities and differences. It is useful to outline the limitations and strengths of the study, and suggest a future line of work. A concise, convincing and meticulous discussion with scholarly referencing is the key to a lasting impression.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Dewan P, Gupta P. Writing the Title, abstract and introduction: looks matter! Indian Pediatr. 2016;53:235–41.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Mukherjee A, Lodha R. Writing the results. Indian Pediatr. 2016;53:409–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Drotar D. Editorial: How to write an effective results and discussion for the Journal of Pediatric Psychology. J Pediatr Psychol. 2009;34:339–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Annesley TM. The discussion section: your closing argument. Clin Chem. 2010;56:1671–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Hess DR. How to write an effective discussion. Respir Care. 2004;49:1238–41.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hoberman A, Chesney RW; RIVUR Trial Investigators. Antimicrobial prophylaxis for children with vesicoureteral reflux. N Engl J Med. 2014;371:1072–3.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Gulati A, Sinha A, Gupta A, Kanitkar M, Sreenivas V, Sharma J, et al. Treatment with tacrolimus and prednisolone is preferable to intravenous cyclophospha-mide as the initial therapy for children with steroid-resistant nephrotic syndrome. Kidney Int. 2012;82:1130–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Fivez T, Kerklaan D, Mesotten D, Verbruggen S, Wouters PJ, Vanhorebeek I, et al. Early versus late parenteral nutrition in critically ill children. N Engl J Med. 2016;374:1111–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Sanli O, Erdem S, Tefik T. How to write a discussion section? Turk J Urol. 2013;39(Suppl 1):20–4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Foote M. The proof of the pudding: how to report results and write a good discussion. Chest. 2009;135:866–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kotsis SV, Chung KC. A guide for writing in the scientific forum. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;126:1763–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Derish P, Eastwood S. A clarity clinic for surgical writing. J Surg Res. 2008;147:50–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Morgan PP. Perfecting the manuscript: getting the right words in the right place. Can Med Assoc J. 1983;128:769–73.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Indian Pediatrics. Instruction to Authors. Available from: http://indianpediatrics.net/author1.htm. Accessed August 21, 2016.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arvind Bagga.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bagga, A. Discussion: The heart of the paper. Indian Pediatr 53, 901–904 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13312-016-0955-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13312-016-0955-4

Keywords

Navigation