Scientific Writing Scientific Writing Mehmet Tevfik DORAK, MD PhD Mehmet Tevfik DORAK, MD PhD Robert Stempel College of Public Health and Social Work Robert Stempel College of Public Health and Social Work Department of Environmental & Occupational Health Department of Environmental & Occupational Health February 5, 2013 February 5, 2013 1
51
Embed
Scientific Writing Mehmet Tevfik DORAK, MD PhD Robert Stempel College of Public Health and Social Work Department of Environmental & Occupational Health.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Scientific WritingScientific Writing
Mehmet Tevfik DORAK, MD PhDMehmet Tevfik DORAK, MD PhD
Robert Stempel College of Public Health and Social Robert Stempel College of Public Health and Social WorkWork
Department of Environmental & Occupational HealthDepartment of Environmental & Occupational Health
IL-6 and β-selectin as prognostic markers for atherosclerotic disease
Background: Atherosclerotic disease is a major cause of death in the United States. We investigated which analyte, IL-6 or β-selectin, would be a better prognostic marker for
atherosclerotic disease. Methods: We divided patients into 4 groups. Specimens from each patient were tested for
interleukin-6 and β-selectin and matched against the patient’s disease group. During the study period, these analytes were measured again to determine whether concentrations changed with
disease severity. Mortality was also monitored for each group to investigate any relationship between IL-6 or β-selectin and the risk of death.
Results: The IL-6 concentrations were different between groups, with the IL-6 concentrations significantly different between groups 1 and 3, and 1 and 4. Although IL-6 and β-selectin
concentrations both changed, β-selectin changed by only 10% to 30%. Changes in disease severity were reflected in changes in IL-6. IL-6 values were the same for men and women and did not show any relationship with patient age. Intraindividual variation for IL-6 was much lower than that for β-
selectin. Conclusions: IL-6 and β-selectin concentrations change with a change in heart disease severity. Intraindividual variation of IL-6 was also much lower than β-selectin, further validating the use of
IL-6 over β-selectin. Further work is needed to confirm this observation.
Interleukin-6 as a prognostic marker for atherosclerotic disease
Background: Serum concentrations of the vascular inflammation marker β-selectin correlate with atherosclerotic disease severity, but β-selectin has a large intraindividual variation. We
investigated whether interleukin-6 (IL-6), another marker of vascular inflammation, could predict disease severity and mortality risk.
Methods: Consecutive outpatients undergoing evaluation for peripheral vascular disease (PVD) were divided into categories ranging from no functional impairment (group 1) to severe functional impairment (group 4). Blood was collected at baseline and quarterly over 3 years. Serum IL-6 and β-selectin were quantified to calculate intraindividual variation and to assess the relationships of
these markers to disease severity and mortality. Results: Baseline median IL-6 concentrations were 12, 26, 96, and 144 μg/L for categories 1 to 4,
respectively (P < 0.001 for categories 3 and 4 vs 1) and were not found related to age or sex. Median β-selectin concentrations increased 30% across the 4 categories. Increased disease
severity and mortality were associated with higher IL-6 concentrations (P < 0.01 for both), but not β-selectin. Intraindividual variation for group 1 was 14% for IL-6 and 36% for β-selectin.
Conclusions: IL-6 appears to be a better marker of disease severity and mortality than β-selectin in patients with PVD, with lower intraindividual variation and significant concentration changes with
- Are the four major elements (background, existing research, problems with that research or gaps in
knowledge, your improvements) covered in four or fewer paragraphs?
- Is it possible for a reader to tell why you did the study and why it is an improvement over existing knowledge?- Do you use an objective tone when criticizing previous
work?- Do you describe how your study addresses the
problems of previous research?- Is there anything extraneous in your introduction?
- Did you provide a reference for all non-obvious statements of fact?
- Did you follow the instructions of the publisher for unpublished data, abstracts or personal
communications?- Did you cite only the references that you have read
and understood?- Did you prepare the reference list in the special
format for the target journal? - Did you update thereference list before submission?
- If no special format is indicated, have you been consistent?
Other BitsOther Bits
27
Running title Keywords (MESH)
Author contributionsConflict of interest statements
AcknowledgementsReviewer suggestions and exclusions
Cover letter
When the manuscript is finished, look back to see:- Does the title make sense or the text has changed drastically
and you need a new title?- Have you made your research question clear?
- Have you provided an answer? - Have you made it clear: (a) how your work adds to the previous knowledge, and what gap it fills, and (b) what progress does your
work represent?
In other words:Do not bother with a statistical exercise based on a convenience sample. In the Discussion, all you have to say should not be just how many other studies are out there and how inconsistent the results are, and your study is just another inconclusive addition
to the mix.
28
Looking BackLooking Back
Even if not required:- Prepare key messages
- Try to summarize your work for lay people
Read the review criteria of the journal
Do not ask anyone to review your paper without providing a title and an abstract!
29
Good PracticeGood Practice
30
- Importance of research subject studied- Originality
- Appropriateness and adequcy of study design- Strength of evidence supporting conclusions
- Quality and length of presentation- Duplication of data in text, tables and figures
- Appropriate and adequate citing of previous work