For the bibliography, how many sources you think are proper, i believe 5 sources should be in the bibliography.
You will see that i need to choose 1 out of 3 options: Economic evaluation, systematic literature review or empirical study.
I was thinking to do economic evaluation but exactly which category to choose im not sure (cost-effectivness analysis, budget impact, cost of illness…etc).
As for the topic: I would like to do something about Endometriosis disease (I just had major surgery for it) or something else about women’s health.
Term Paper
Annex: Guidelines for writing a scientific research
paper
February, 2024
PRESENTATION OF THE DOCUMENT
This document provides a series of recommendations for the design, elaboration and
presentation of the work required to pass the Term Paper. It is not a handbook on research
methodology but rather a guide to write a scientific research paper. Both aspects, the
research itself and the written presentation, are closely related. In this sense, these notes
should be taken as a practical guide for those of you who are not used to writing research
projects.
The content of this text consists of three sections:
1) Types of research project. Illustrates what are the different types of research projects
that are accepted as personal elaborations to pass this Course.
2) General structure of a scientific research paper. It refers to the sections of an
investigation and its stages of progress.
3) Final recommendations about writing. Aims to be a synthesis of the practical issues
that need to be taken into account in the development of the work.
In any case, before starting your TP, is essential to look up the specific documents related to
each type of TP available in the eCampus.
2
TYPES OF RESEARCH PAPERS
There are different ways of approaching the content and scope of a research project.
Summarised, they fall into the following categories.
a. Systematic literature review
It is usually known as a survey about a particular topic. It is also a synthesis of the knowledge
already accumulated. Sometimes it is timely to carry out a work that considers the state of
the art, that is, the current situation of accumulated knowledge about a certain topic or scope
of work. These approaches are justified to the extent that the chosen theme is relevant and
up to date. Retrieving the thread of the investigations carried out on an aspect of knowledge
is illustrative to guide future research and evaluate what has been done thus far. The review
should be systematic, organized, illustrative of the important points, of the milestones that
have caused interesting leaps in the acquired knowledge, of the homogeneity or
heterogeneity of the type of studies and of the results included in the review, as well as of
the difficulties encountered by the researchers, the advance lines and the dead ends.
It is said that it must be systematic in the sense that the four basic stages that define a revision
(search of studies in bibliographic bases, selection -according to predefined inclusion and
exclusion criteria-, analysis and synthesis) must follow criteria, steps and systematic methods
known and reproducible, like those of any other type of study. It should be emphasized that
what distinguishes a bibliographic review (with secondary data) from an original investigation
(with primary data) is not the scientific methods (search, selection, analysis and synthesis)
applied in both, but the unit of analysis. In an original study, the unit of analysis is the
individuals, samples or specimens that are analyzed, while in a review the unit of analysis is
each of the studies already carried out that integrate them.
An approach of this kind requires, therefore, a careful strategy for searching and obtaining
information, for its schematization and organized presentation so that it is easy for the reader
to detect the relevant aspects of the investigations carried out up to the date and
identification of the advance lines.
In a project of this nature it should be essential to indicate the strategy followed to obtain
3
information in the bibliographic databases consulted (which bases, with which keywords and
combinations of them.) In addition, the inclusion and exclusion criteria in the review of the
studies found in the search (for example, experimental or observational designs, sample sizes,
types of statistical analysis carried out, year of publication of the study, language of
publication), as well as the methods to extract and analyze the key variables considered in
the review (qualitative or quantitative), and how to synthesize the results of these analyses.
Finally, it must be decided whether the degree of homogeneity of the original studies
included in the systematic review and of its results allows combining the estimates of the
individual studies in a common synthetic estimate, that is, to perform a meta-analysis or not.
It is highly recommended to know the recommendations agreed on an international scale for
the publication and review of the different types of studies. All of them are available in this
link: http://www.equator-network.org/.
As indicated at the beginning, before undertaking a systematic review, it is essential to
carefully read the PRISMA guide, specifically prepared to elaborate a systematic review (all
the information on this guide and its annexes can be found here: http://www.prismastatement.org/). A certain fraction of students gets the progress of their TP significantly slowed
down because they have not studied it. Lastly, it is very useful to read in advance a systematic
review published in a journal of the highest quality, because they offer a good reference and
help to understand how each step of the review is carried out and how the data is structured
and presented.
b. Original empirical research
This is the usual type of research. It is about taking advantage of some empirical evidence to
illustrate a certain research problem. Empirical research can be, at least, of two types:
•
Descriptive research
•
Confirmatory research
Descriptive research
A descriptive investigation has less scope and complexity and serves in the first stages of
incursion in a topic. The descriptive analysis consists of the story, ordered, systematic and
4
informative, of a certain reality. For this, we tend to use the most basic statistical techniques
in order to summarize, synthesize and graphically represent the information obtained. It does
not require special references to work hypotheses, but focuses on the elements of
representativeness of the information, validity and reliability of the measurement
instruments used, and characteristics of the information.
When the information is of a numerical nature, that is, when we use variables that are
represented on metric scales, it is advisable to characterise the information in relation to
some essential aspects for subsequent statistical analysis. These characteristics can be
summarised as follows1:
– Distribution of the values of the variable (it refers to, for example, information about
the normality of the distribution of the values of the variable studied).
– Homogeneity of the data (for example, the existence of values at the extremes of the
distribution that might affect the measures that summarise it).
– Linearity in the behaviour of the variables taken two by two (analysis of the linear
correlations between pairs of variables).
– Representativeness of the sample in the event of the data corresponding to a sample
taken from a population. (The specifications of the sample survey should be analysed
in detail in order to know the statistical characteristics of the information obtained).
It is important to report the non-response rate and the procedure followed to select
the sample units.
– Reliability and validity of the measuring instruments used, especially in those cases
where we do not only measure easily quantifiable facts, but attitudes, assessments,
opinions and so on.
Confirmatory research
An investigation is confirmatory when it is carried out with the intention of proceeding to give
1 Hair, JF, Anderson, RE, Tatham, RL and Back, WC: Multivariate Data Analysis. 5th edition. Prentice Hall. Chapters 1 and 2.
5
information about one or more hypotheses. The result of the investigation must allow to
reject, or not, the hypotheses considered.
For this type of research, it is essential to explicitly formulate a research question that
responds to a real, credible and relevant problem. For this, it is convenient to have well
defined the conceptual framework in which contributions are expected both theoretical and
based on the observation of reality. The conceptual framework may be original or adapted
from other previous research experiences. In any case, it must be sufficiently developed and
explained in a simple and understandable way.
From the research problem we must derive the research objectives and the hypotheses that
undergo the test of the data, that is, the empirical evidence. The objectives are usually
formulated literally while the hypotheses must be expressed in the form of statements that
incorporate the elements that are then subjected to the test of the data. Take into account
that when formulating objectives you often confuse the goal itself with what you are going
to do to achieve it. For example, objectives are often stated saying that “the objective of the
study is to analyze” or “compare” or “describe”, when analyzing, comparing and describing
are methods, not objectives, that are carried out for any purpose. The objective is that
purpose; something is analyzed or compared with a goal. Sometimes, in investigations of a
more quantitative nature, the hypotheses include unknown parameters, dependency
relationships between variables or the distribution of one or more variables.
The analytical methods used should be appropriate given the scope of the research, the
characteristics of the data and the design of the research, and the possibilities of standard
statistical techniques. The choice of the design (type) of the study and the methods of analysis
must be in accordance to the objectives of the work. In the eCampus there are guides and
recommendations on the review and publication of different types of studies, experimental
(clinical trials) and observational, as well as diagnostic tests and economic evaluations.
6
GENERAL STRUCTURE OF A SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH PAPER
A scientific research paper requires a specific working methodology and, in short, a structure
that enables you to order your ideas and the sequence of operations. A well-structured text
is also easier to read, and more likely to reach a wider impact. One way of tackling research
is to answer an elementary set of questions such as those recommended by Day2 when he
suggests that, when it comes to style, the important thing about a research paper is to be
able to answer the following questions:
•
What issue (problem) was studied?
•
How was the problem studied?
•
What are the results or findings?
•
What do these results mean?
The first of these four questions unfolds throughout the introduction to the paper. The
second corresponds to the section on the methodology used, the third to the presentation
of the results, and the fourth and last question refers to the discussion section.
Let’s now go into detail about some of the elements that make up an original research
project. A recommendation, especially useful for those not used to writing research papers,
is to follow the known format IMRAD (Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion:
http://icmje.org/recommendations/browse/manuscript-preparation/preparing-forsubmission.html):
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
Title
Abstract
Introduction: background, hypotheses and objectives
Methods: information used, databases, method of analysis
Results
Discussion, including limitations and conclusions
Bibliographical references
1) Title
The title should inform about the area of the research and the problems dealt with. It
2 Day, RA. Origins of Scientific Writing. In: Day, RA. How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper. 5 th Edition.
Phoenix. Oryx Press, 1998.
7
should be short, it should not include excessively complex terms or abbreviations, and it
should be suggestive and appealing, arousing the readerÂ’s (scientific) curiosity.
2) Abstract
This part of the paper is usually written at the end, but is placed at the beginning of the text.
The aim is to provide a sufficiently concise and precise outline of the area of study, the
main objectives of the research and the advance in knowledge achieved through it.
The abstract must necessarily be short and structured and must inform about the study
carried out, not vaguely describe what has been done in it. The sections of the structured
summary are: objectives, scope, place, design, methods, results, conclusions. The content of
the summary should serve to describe the objective of the work, the type of design and
research, the scope to which it refers, the measurements of the most important variables
and the main conclusions. The summary must also provide enough information so that
whoever reads it decides if it addresses the topic that interests them. Do not forget that after
reading a summary, an effort must often be made to find the published study. A seasoned
reader can get an idea, even if it is only approximate and initial, and in some way predictive,
of the quality of the study that follows the summary. It is rare to find an excellent study after
a poorly structured and uninformative summary, that is, without key information about
objectives (with inaccurately or incorrectly defined objectives), methods and results, and
with conclusions that at first sight cannot be extracted from the type of study summarized.
In all this lies the importance of the summary. An abstract should not have more than 300
words.
3) Introduction
Background
When carrying out an investigation, it is absolutely essential to know what is the state of the
art or, in other words, the state of knowledge acquired about a subject and a certain problem.
The background serves to describe the frame and the concrete problem of the investigation,
as well as to orient a concrete direction to the investigator, to discard lines of investigation
that do not guarantee any advance and to locate the work in the context of the improvement
of the knowledge. A good bibliographic review shows that the background is clear and well
known by the researcher.
Sometimes all this information is presented under the label of introduction that could even
8
include, in a format of presentation of the work much more condensed than usual, the
objectives and hypotheses. This initial part of the writing of the research work should serve
to account for the relevance of the chosen topic and the theoretical and conceptual context
in which it is framed. Likewise, it should serve to situate the research carried out in the
context of other research and lines of research about the same content.
This section should also be brief and aims to frame the research carried out both from the
conceptual point of view and its scope. At the end of the introduction, the need for research
must be sufficiently justified.
In short, the Introduction should 1) frame the research problem, 2) review the literature
critically (highlighting the homogeneity or heterogeneity of the studies conducted on the
subject, together with its methodological quality (internal and external validity) and most
important limitations, 3) justify the study, and 4) formulate objectives and hypotheses.
Aspects to be included
• Demonstration of some familiarity with the proposed topic.
• Demonstration of knowledge of the results of previous
research.
• Description of the current state of knowledge on the
subject (state of the art).
• Description of the limitations or difficulties encountered by
other researchers who have dealt with this issue.
• Description of the questions and lines of investigation open
before starting your research.
• Conviction that the proposed research is necessary.
Aspects to avoid
• Excessive enthusiasm about the topic.
• Lack of objectivity when accounting for the
state of the art and the achievements of
other researchers.
• Over-wordiness: the idea is to write an
outline, not an encyclopaedia.
• Use of incorrect terms and concepts.
• Inclusion of some elements from the
conclusions.
• Incorporation of data.
Hypotheses and objectives
A scientific research project is a way of answering a research problem. Once you have
delimited the object of the paper and provided a brief account of the context in which it
is set, you should outline clearly and unequivocally the general aim of the research and
its specific objectives.
The objectives are an explicit statement of what you intend to investigate and should
summarise the research question you want to answer. The hypotheses are the formal
9
consequence of the objectives set. When the research is of the confirmatory type and is set
in a statistical framework, the hypotheses are usually formulated in the classical format of
statistical hypotheses. That is, in the form of statements containing one or more parameters
or ways of distributing the variables. In the descriptive research there are no working
hypothesis in the strict sense of the term, but rather the formulation of a desire to relate or
explain what is happening or has happened.
Aspects to be included
• The objectives should refer to the research problem, i.e.,
the key question of the research.
• They should be expressed clearly and concisely, and as far
as possible, briefly.
• The general aim of the research should be accompanied by
a small number of specific objectives stated in order of
importance.
• The text should be original and attractively written.
• The objectives must be attainable, relevant and assessable.
• If patients were used, a note should be included regarding
Aspects to avoid
• Write objectives far from the reference
conceptual framework.
• Write the objectives in an imprecise or
ambiguous way.
• Mix up objectives with the methods used to
achieve them.
• Establish an extensive list of objectives.
• Do not refer to the objectives at the end of
the work.
ethical principles.
When formulating objectives you often confuse the goal itself with what you are going to do
to achieve it. For example, objectives are often stated saying that “the objective of the study
is to analyze” or “compare” or “describe”, when analyzing, comparing and describing are
methods, not objectives, that are carried out for any purpose. The objective is that purpose;
something is analyzed or compared with a goal.
Information used. Databases
Regarding the data, it is convenient or, better said, essential to review whether the source is
of the primary type (data obtained first hand and usually for this research) or secondary (data
that comes from other existing sources), and if they are internal to the institution or scope of
work or external to it.
The information used can correspond to a quantitative approach (with the generation of
variables that take numerical values in simple or compound scales of metric type) or of a
qualitative nature. If the information comes from a survey by sampling (either designed for
10
the occasion or, on the contrary, designed beforehand and for other initial purposes) it is
illustrative to review any type of data that allows knowing what the representativeness of it
is. It must be considered that in order to know with certainty whether a sample is
representative of the population from which it comes or not, it should be possible to compare
the distributions of the variables of interest in the sample with those of the population from
which it comes. This is often it is not possible because the latter is unknown. To the extent
that this can be done, however, it is advisable to reflect a brief summary of the sampling data
sheet (sampling method (simple random, systematic, stratified by conglomerates), inclusion
criteria and exclusion of population elements, maximum error expected in the estimation,
confidence level, criterion to determine the sample size, survey administration procedure,
survey period, entity responsible for the field work, method of selecting the sample units and
some information about the treatment of non-responses). What is not acceptable from the
scientific point of view is to affirm that a sample is representative when all the indicated
information is unknown.
4) Methods (or Materials and Methods)
In this section of the paper you should explain the characteristics of the research design, the
data used and, if applicable, the method of analysis and calculation used. In short, this section
should summarize what has been done without losing sight of the scientific principle of
reproducibility to which this section responds: the materials and methods used in the
investigation should be indicated so that, although describing them in a summarized way, it
can be reproduced.
The method should be coherent and congruent with the point of departure of the research
and with its scope. You should avoid using very advanced methodologies for modest
objectives. The means employed in the research should be in consonance with its goals.
If you are able to answer the question why you used the data and the methods chosen,
and also how you used the methodology, you will have laid a good foundation for your
argument. To this end, it is advisable to account for the design of the paper, the physical
(location, organisation), temporal and regulatory context, the data used and, if appropriate,
the characteristics of the individuals involved in the research (patients, users), the
intervention if you are dealing with a trial, the ways in which the results are measured
11
(measurement scale of the variables, cost estimation methods), sampling and statistical
analysis methods and, if required, the ethical principles statement.
Regarding the analytical or empirical methods, you should provide information about the
criteria that led you to use them, the advantages and disadvantages of using them, and even
the working limitations or assumptions involved in using the chosen methods. The methods
should be pertinent and suitable for the objectives of the research. As indicated above, the
internationally agreed recommendations and guidelines should be consulted to present the
statistical analyses available in the eCampus.
When calculating costs, for example, it is important to identify at detail the information
source, the type of elements included in each cost category, the procedures used to
calculate or estimate the costs and, if there are allocated costs, an explanation of the method
followed. In the following link there are two guides (the first one in Spanish and the seconds
one in English) to review economic evaluations, that contains information
http://scielo.isciii.es/pdf/gs/v24n2/especial1.pdf
and
about it:
http://www.equator-
network.org/reporting-guidelines/cheers/
5) Results
The abilities provided by the use of computer programs offer the researcher an enormous
amount of material to accompany the results of the research. In order not to make this part
of the work endless, a certain amount of skill is required to select among the most relevant
and relevant results obtained. You have to know how to select the amount of information
that will accompany the written text of the work as the way of presenting them. The figures
and tables should be very well thought out, be illustrative and simple to interpret. They
should be accompanied by a clear and concise title, as well as explanatory notes to clarify
possible doubts, explain the meaning of abbreviations, etc. A fundamental editorial standard
must be fulfilled in this respect: the results presented should not be repeated in the text,
tables and figures. The means must be chosen to show them in the simplest and clearest way
(for example, it does not make sense to include a table in which the values of the variables
do not change in a column, it is easier to say that they did not vary).
The order in which the various figures and tables appear is important. A recommended
strategy is to tell how the research was developed in the sense of the steps followed until
12
finding some type of response to the research question. A logical order consists of moving
from those descriptive and very general results to those that provide information of greater
detail and particularization. This logical order does not coincide, in general, with the
chronological order. Sometimes it is illustrative to present the most striking results first and
leave the variants and peculiarities for later.
Try to avoid ambiguous terms3 such as “perhaps”, “maybe”, “probably” or “as was to be
expected” (by whom?).
The results section should include precisely that: the results of the research. However, this
does not mean that they should be accompanied by complicated assessments and
interpretations. These issues are reserved for the discussion section.
6) Discussion
The discussion section is the place to explain the meaning, not the numerical but the
interpretative one, of the figures included in the graphs and tables in the previous section.
The discussion fulfils these functions: interpreting the results obtained, linking them together,
linking them with those of other pertinent studies, pointing out the limitations, presenting
the conclusions and, if available, making recommendations for future studies.
A good strategy advises accompanying the content of the formulated hypotheses of the
information obtained from the results. It is also convenient to move forward in such a way
that the background and the bibliographic review have their correspondence with the results
of the research carried out. It is important not to incur the frequent error of repeating the
results. In the discussion they are not repeated, they are interpreted, and it is also convenient
to interpret them following the same order in which they were presented in the results
section. The discussion must also include the limitations of the investigation. There are no
investigations without some limitation. Describing them with a critical spirit shows both
scientific honesty and analytical capacity.
In the majority of scientific journals, the conclusions do not constitute an added appendix to
the previous ones, but are included as the last or the penultimate section of the Discussion
3 Arranz, M. El corazón del artÃculo. Gestión ClÃnica y Sanitaria. Vol. 5, núm. 1. 2003, 43.
13
(penultimate when some recommendations are included). The conclusions allow to reinforce
the research findings and the most outstanding points of the same. The conclusions suppose,
in the majority of the investigations, one of the expected courses of the work. The researcher,
when raising the research topic, the questions and the objectives, knows in advance which
are the possible results. It is a way to anticipate the conclusions that are retaken definitively
in this section.
If the final writing of the work considers the conclusions and the discussion separately, then
the recommendation consists of sticking to the interpretation of the results in the discussion
section and leaving for the conclusions the most general assessments and its broadest point
of view and less subject to the outline of the project. The aim is to take advantage of the
section on conclusions to make a statement of intentions about future research. It must not
be forgotten that the conclusions are not repetitions of the results.
7) Bibliographical references
The bibliography consulted and analysed should be cited in research papers according to the
standard forms of presentation used for bibliographies among the scientific community. The
standards of the so-called Vancouver style are the most commonly used. The International
Committee of Medical Journal Editors presented a new version of their recommendations
by the end of 2003. Following the guides to write them is extremely useful and saves
subsequent work of adaptation of the texts for their future publication in prestigious journals.
The number of references for an original article of about 3,000 words is usually between 30
and 40 (https://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/uniform_requirements.html).
Everything extracted from sources other than those of the research or study in progress
should be referenced, including other published works by the authors themselves. Not
referencing data or information from others constitutes a violation of the ethics of
publications.
14
FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS ABOUT WRITING
The presentation of a text reporting scientific research must meet the elementary standards
of writing. You should try to be concise, clear and accurate when writing the text.
Grammatical structure is important for easing the understanding of the message you are
trying to transmit. The aim is not to win a prize for literary originality but to make things
easier for the reader. This will help to reach broader audience. Structure your sentences
bearing in mind what you were taught when you were a child: start with the subject and then
attach the verb, the object and the adverbial phrases. Only write what you yourself can
understand. Be respectful with the truth of things and situations, try to be objective in all
your statements, and always justify your valuations.
The use of abbreviations should be limited to those that are frequent in the field, and
they should follow some basic standards. Abbreviations should not be included in the title,
and as far as possible you should avoid them in the abstract. In any event, the first time you
use an abbreviation you should indicate exactly what it stands for, except in the case of
commonly used units of measurement (monetary units such as euros and dollars, or units of
weight, volume, distance, etc.). Abbreviations of journal titles should follow the
internationally established standards (http://icmje.org/recommendations/browse/manuscriptpreparation/preparing-for-submission.html).
15
