Use my Search Websuite to scan PubMed, PMCentral, Journal Hosts and Journal Archives, FullText. Kick-your-searchterm to multiple Engines kick-your-query now !>

A dictionary by aggregated review articles of nephrology, medicine and the life sciences Your one-stop-run pathway from word to the immediate pdf of peer-reviewed on-topic knowledge.

10.1186/s12874-018-0490-1 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1186/s12874-018-0490-1 C5905138!5905138!29665780     free     free     free Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534       BMC+Med+Res+Methodol 2018 ; 18 (ä): ä Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=29665780|t=2018. Writing a discussion section: how to integrate substantive and statistical expertise |pdf=|usr=}}{{29665780}} gab.com Text Writing a discussion section: how to integrate substantive and statistical expertise JO: BMC Med Res Methodol http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=29665780 #FOAvip Background: When discussing results medical research articles often tear substantive and statistical (methodical) contributions apart, just as if both were independent. Consequently, reasoning on bias tends to be vague, unclear and superficial. This can lead to over-generalized, too narrow and misleading conclusions, especially for causal research questions. Main body: To get the best possible conclusion, substantive and statistical expertise have to be integrated on the basis of reasonable assumptions. While statistics should raise questions on the mechanisms that have presumably created the data, substantive knowledge should answer them. Building on the related principle of Bayesian thinking, we make seven specific and four general proposals on writing a discussion section. Conclusion: Misinterpretation could be reduced if authors explicitly discussed what can be concluded under which assumptions. Informed on the resulting conditional conclusions other researchers may, according to their knowledge and beliefs, follow a particular conclusion or, based on other conditions, arrive at another one. This could foster both an improved debate and a better understanding of the mechanisms behind the data and should therefore enable researchers to better address bias in future studies. Twit Text FOAVip Writing a discussion section: how to integrate substantive and statistical expertise ????BMC Med Res Methodol http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=29665780 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=29665780 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|29665780}}</ref> Writing a discussion section: how to integrate substantive and statistical expertise #MMPMID29665780 Höfler M; Venz J; Trautmann S; Miller R BMC Med Res Methodol 2018[]; 18 (ä): ä PMID29665780show ga Background: When discussing results medical research articles often tear substantive and statistical (methodical) contributions apart, just as if both were independent. Consequently, reasoning on bias tends to be vague, unclear and superficial. This can lead to over-generalized, too narrow and misleading conclusions, especially for causal research questions. Main body: To get the best possible conclusion, substantive and statistical expertise have to be integrated on the basis of reasonable assumptions. While statistics should raise questions on the mechanisms that have presumably created the data, substantive knowledge should answer them. Building on the related principle of Bayesian thinking, we make seven specific and four general proposals on writing a discussion section. Conclusion: Misinterpretation could be reduced if authors explicitly discussed what can be concluded under which assumptions. Informed on the resulting conditional conclusions other researchers may, according to their knowledge and beliefs, follow a particular conclusion or, based on other conditions, arrive at another one. This could foster both an improved debate and a better understanding of the mechanisms behind the data and should therefore enable researchers to better address bias in future studies. äWriting a discussion section: how to integrate substantive and statist(epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing