Computer generated transcript

Warning!
The following transcript was generated automatically from the content and has not been checked or corrected manually.

Academic Writing Critical Appraisal Webinar Series Asian Medical Students Association-Scotland Professor Phyo Kyaw Myint Professor of Medicine of Old Age MBBS, MD, FRCPE, FRCP University of Aberdeen Types of academic writing • Case Reports (medical field) • BSc/MSc theses • ? General scientific community • PhD thesis • ? Specialists only • Opinion piece/Letter to the Editor • ? Lay audience • Commentary/Blogs • Review paper • Research paper/letter (Lab/non-lab) • Systematic review/meta-analysis • Guidelines/Protocols • Book chapter • Book • EditorialsBefore writing • Study what others do, i.e. how do they write? • Look at papers from New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet and BMJ, or top journals of your interested field • What type of study are you writing? - basic sciences, case report, case series, cross sectional study, cohort study, case-control study, nested case-control study, trials, qualitative study, mixed method study, protocol, systematic review +/- meta-analysis. • Examine what verbs, adjectives do they use • Look at how they structure the paperGeneral rules • Always use simple language which is understandable • Do not use lay language – use formal language (not so, therefore) • Think what to write and how to write carefully • Start with a simple sentence and build up –use adj, advs, etc. • Never use the same word in same sentence and also preferably not in two consecutive sentences • Think carefully of wording (reduce vs. decrease, rising vs. increasing) • Consistently write in either active or passive voice.Introduction • Need to tell a story • Need to demonstrate novelty, importance, relevance • Importance and relevance - extent of the problem (provide bigger picture) - why is it important and what is the impact • Novelty - What is the present/current situation/knowledge; - identify gaps; why these gaps are important /relevant to understand – then tell what your study is about, and how you intend to address the evidence gapMethodsResults • Tables and results should be able to be read and interpreted independently • Not adequate just to say association is significant, but also needs to report direction of association e.g. age is significantly associated with mortality (NOT A GOOD RESULT) ------Older age is significantly associated with higher mortality.Discussion • Be polite and courteous when critically appraise others work, don’t be harsh, don’t use emotive language, be objective • Usual Structure 1. Summary of key results 2. Discussion in the context of previous work – limitations of other studies and own, 3. Explain why the deficiencies/limitations in your study not necessary mislead results, 4. Strengths, (clinical) implication (relevance and importance of findings), future direction of research, 5. ConclusionQuestions?