How to write a “results section” in biomedical scientific research papers?: Critical review

Abstract

Introduction

The “Results section” is a vital organ of a scientific paper, the main reason why readers come and read to find new information in the paper. However, writing the “Results section” demands a rigorous process that discourages many researchers, leaving their work unpublished and uncommunicated in reputable journals. Therefore, this review aims to describe the content, structure, and key standards of writing the “results section” and suggest practical recommendations to reduce common errors in writing the “results section” of manuscripts.

Methods

We searched the literature using search terms in the PubMed database. We also traditionally searched for literature from “Google Scholars”, “Google”, and “Websites”. We narrated and summarized finding sections as the content, structure, writing and presenting of data, logical flow of, and advised on the writing of the “results section” of the scientific paper.

Result

The review suggests guidelines for writing the content and organization, techniques of tabular, and graphical presentation of data in the “results section”. The review also suggests experiences on how to effectively present data in numbers such as percentages, statistical measures such as p-values, and other advanced forms of statistics, Finally, the review recommends relevant points to keep language brevity and logical flow in writing the “results section” of a scientific paper.

Conclusions

Writing a result section of a scientific paper requires practice and it must be concisely written, logically structured, and supported by a good journal-specific standard to be published.

Introduction

Since the first two journals—Journal des Scavans in France and Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London in England—started publishing scientific results in 1665, journals have been the main channel for scientific communication. ¹ Over 48,000 active scientific peer-reviewed journals are published globally as of late 2021, with 35,000 of these being published in English. ² Writing the “results section” in scientific publication requires a rigorous process that demands effective writing and presenting the contents of the key findings of the research in organized formats for better communication to the current scientific advancement.

The “Results section” is the third most important anatomical structure of IMRAD (Introduction, Method and Material, Result, And Discussion) frameworks, the almost universally accepted framework in many journals in the late nineteenth century. ³ Before using a structured IMRAD format, research findings in scientific papers were presented in chronological order “First, I saw this, and then I saw that”. ¹ Whatever the philosophy followed by the researchers, whichever type of research and the design of research used, disseminating the “results” of research in an article for publication in a scientific journal is a common process for researchers of any discipline. For researchers who wish to be recognized,^4,5 their original work known as “results or findings” will be evaluated by the reviewers and editors before getting published for efficient dissemination. The Results section of any scientific paper is more important than other sections of manuscripts where the scientific and healthcare communities strive to get new information. ⁶ However, writing a scientific and efficient “result section” of a manuscript is a highly discouraging task for many researchers to get published in a reputable journal.^7,8

To meet the objective of publishing and effectively communicating research findings, authors should better write the “results section” of the article in a clear, succinct, objective, logically structured, understandable, and compelling for readers.^8–11 This allows readers to judge the distinctive contributions of a particular paper to the existing body of knowledge. However, authors, especially early career researchers frequently face challenges such as redundancies, ambiguities, inappropriate presentation of data, inappropriate presentation of numbers and statistics, mismatched results with the method sections, and inconsistencies and grammatical errors when preparing and submitting a manuscript to a scientific journal.^5,12,13 Putting excessive information into the ‘Results' section is also a common pitfall that results in space constraints in the publishing journals and signifies a lack of consideration for the time of editors, reviewers, and readers. ¹⁴ Finally, such pitfalls may cause rejection and an inability to effectively communicate the findings of the articles to the wider community. Therefore, guiding early career researchers on how to write the ‘Results' section of journal articles is crucial for enhancing the overall quality of publications. ¹³

Many best practice books and guidelines on writing scientific papers have been published by editors and reviewers of best practice journals.^1,8,15,16 This review takes a different approach, concentrating solely on the ‘Results' section of an article, encompassing all aspects of the researchers’ work where most common errors were made not only by early career researchers but also by their experienced counterparts. The review draws on the latest literature, articles, and best practice guidelines from journals and books on scientific paper writing in biomedical sciences and related life sciences. Though primarily aimed at biomedical early career researchers, many of the recommendations may have broader relevance across diverse disciplines. Therefore, this review aims to describe the content, structure, and key standards of writing the “results section” of a scientific article and suggest practical recommendations to reduce common errors.

Review methods

We conducted a critical review following guidelines for critical reviews in psychology ¹⁷ due to the lack of guidelines for critical reviews in biomedical sciences. We retrieved published articles, books, book chapters, and relevant Web site literature containing contents on how to write the “results section “from the PubMed database, “Science Direct”, “Google Scholars”, “Google” and relevant book sites. We used search terms for PubMed database such as “results section”, “structure of results section”, “writing results section” “scientific article”, “writing a scientific paper”, “structure of scientific paper” and “publishing an article”, “introduction, method, result and discussion, “IMRD”, “academic writing”, “logical flow results section”, “scientific communication” and “result section in the scientific paper”. We also made a traditional search by topics containing the above search terms from “Science Direct”, “Google Scholar” and “Google” and relevant Book Websites.

To ensure a focused review, we established inclusion and exclusion criteria. We included books and book chapters edited and published by reputable sources without time restrictions if the contents align with the current practices. We included published articles Editors’ advice papers from credible journals, and health research reporting guidelines from sources like the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) and the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) network. We excluded non-English language literature and deemed outdated or misaligned with current practices, and unclear methodology and relevance to the objective of the review.

Abstracts, “results section” of full texts of “scientific writing articles” or “results section” of articles, book chapters, and contents of websites were examined for inclusion to review. The articles that were relevant to the objective of the review have been selected and documented to an EndNote version 20 in portable document formats (PDFs) for the required extraction of information. Book chapters presenting how to “write results section” were manually entered into EndNote version 20 for citation. Editors’ advice papers were also included for review from important websites such as “Science Direct”.

We extracted relevant information by reviewing the literature on “writing results sections” aligned with the review’s objective. Finally, we thematically summarized our findings. The themes include “Structuring contents of the ‘results section’, “Describing the experiments and study population”, “Presenting the main and secondary or other findings”, “Using tables and Figures”, “Reporting numbers and statistics” and “Creating language clarity and logical flow”. Each theme suggests guidelines for early career biomedical science writers in the “Results Section” with proper citations to reviewed works.

Results

According to the reviewed literature, the “results section” of an article is not the place for presenting methods and experimental details or interpreting data. The “results” section, the heart of any article, is the third section of the IMRAD structure. Writing the “results section” can either begin with a general overview of the experiment or with a direct presentation by referring to tables or figures. The “result section” primarily encompasses two core components through a subheading of sections.^1,8,12 The first section provides an overall description of experiments and study populations, providing context without repeating details from the materials and methods section. The second section presents the main and secondary data (or other data in observational studies) of the study.

Structuring contents of the “results section”

The “Results Section” can be presented in various ways, including chronological order, general to specific, and most to least important points. Most of the time, chronology is effective. The authors may also arrange the results in decreasing order of importance of the data, starting with the most significant one. If applicable, it can be arranged in a topic-by-topic structure with headings that are similar to those in the method sections.^8,16 Authors should be cautious that each method section should be accompanied by corresponding results.

Most biomedical journals use the “Results section” which is structured into subsections with subheadings keeping the ingredients of the “Results Section”.^1,4,8,11 The subheadings are mostly organized in chronological order such that results are presented in the same order as methods. The “Results section” of a clinical trial, for example, might have subheadings such as “Study Recruitment”, “Sample characteristics”, “Primary analyses”, “secondary analyses”, “Ancillary analyses”^11,18 or “Participant flow”, “Study Sample”, “Main Outcomes”, “Secondary Outcomes”, and “Harms”. ⁸ Whereas results sections in observational studies may not follow a typical clinical trial structure with subsections like “secondary outcomes”. Whichever subsections authors use, authors should follow guidelines for clarity and coherence so that their “Result section” increases the amount of knowledge available to the scientific and healthcare communities. ⁸ The authors also advise examining similar studies in the target journal to guide the logical presentation of their results. ⁸

Despite no strict rules, authors can structure the “Results section” flexibly by utilizing available author guidelines from the target journal for headings and subheadings. Reporting guidelines are also available for presenting results in a particular sequence in particular biomedical fields along with types of study designs and approaches. For example, authors can check specific guidelines when writing the Results section such as STROBE for observational studies, ¹⁹ CONSORT for clinical trials, ¹⁸ SRQR ²⁰ and COREQ ²¹ for qualitative research, MMAT for mixed method designs ²² and PRISMA ²³ and JBI ²⁴ for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Online guidelines are also available for reference. Credible websites like EQUATOR Network can be useful for searching various guidelines depending on the study types ²⁵

Describing the experiments and study population

Whichever subsections the authors use, the primary subsection should be a brief presentation of the data completeness and accuracy depending on the study type. In a clinical trial, for example, authors should typically begin with detailing the number of patients screened, enrolled, assigned, treated, seen at follow-up, losses to follow-up, any omitted procedures, and any other related harms.^8,11,18 In observational studies, report the number of study participants at each study stage, including eligibility, confirmation, inclusion, follow-up completion, analysis, and reasons for non-participation.^7,8,19 In measurement and diagnostic development studies, authors should present the number of subjects not answering specific items on the questionnaire, reliability and agreement statistics, items dropped and included in a factor list, and so on.^26–28 In systematic reviews and meta-analysis studies, authors may report selection processes, numbers of records included and excluded, presenting a risk of bias, and so on. ²³ In all cases, it is relevant to provide this relevant information with a flowchart whenever possible.^8,12,16

In the next subsection, authors need to characterize the study sample that may be referred to as “Study Sample” or “Subjects” or “Study participants” or “Study characteristics” as much as the authors can.^8,12,16 Start by presenting the socio-demographic characteristics of the study subjects such as sex, age, ethnicity, education level, employment, socioeconomic status, and any other relevant characteristics related to the main outcome(s). Describing continuous characteristics of a study sample like age and income may be described using means or medians with data spread measures like standard deviation, range, interquartile range, and the like.^8,12,16 If applicable, proceed with the relevant baseline clinical or health characteristics. Medical writers recommend presenting the characteristics of the study sample in tables.^8,12,16 During characterizing study samples of intervention or clinical trial studies, the baseline variables of two or more study groups should be compared to the results of the baseline characteristics themselves and decide whether the magnitude of the difference between the two groups is meaningful or not.^8,18 This helps authors early recognize sources of bias, control confounders in further analysis, and clear articulation in the results section.

Presenting main and secondary outcomes (other findings)

The authors should choose the main findings from the research questions of the introduction section to prevent a “data dump”.^8,11,29 To do so, presenting data, figures, tables, and statistical calculations should be reasonable and selective. The Results section should prioritize presenting findings that address the study’s research questions, irrespective of their nature (positive or negative) or statistical significance. The “Results section” should focus on the findings that answer the research question(s), regardless of whether the findings were positive or negative, and whether they are statistically significant or not.^8,11 Whenever possible, it is best to present the main findings using figures as readers are mostly attracted by the figures and memorize information for a longer time. Authors should invest more time in providing thick information on main outcomes using effective data displaying methods such as tables, graphs, and statistical analysis than quickly moving on to secondary outcomes or other findings.^8,30 For example, in the clinical trial or some other comparative studies, provide the magnitude of treatment effect sizes (e.g. Relative Risk, Hazard Ratios, Cohen’s d) with a 95% CI for that specific treatment rather than only putting the magnitude of treatment effect size. ¹⁸

Next to the main outcome, authors should present secondary outcomes for interventional studies along with clear leveling like “Secondary outcome(s)”. In the case of observational studies, authors may choose to level as “other findings” or other similar descriptive subheadings. Authors should choose “secondary outcomes” if the findings support and further develop the main findings.^8,11 For example, if the study is a clinical trial, information such as radiographic findings, results of laboratory tests, quality of- life measures, patient satisfaction and so on could be regarded as “secondary outcomes” provided that they are not the primary findings.^8,11 Authors can also present a deeper analysis or data modeling for further understanding and present other results like unexpected or unusual findings or important to know despite not being directly related to the main outcomes.^8,11 While presenting is more important, authors must be cautious not to present too many that may hide the main findings.^8,11 Secondary outcomes or other findings that have no clear relationship to the study objectives should perhaps be attached or submitted to the journals of interest as supplementary files.^8,11 In a similar fashion to main outcomes, secondary outcomes or other findings may be presented using figures, tables, and/or text depending on the suitability of the data types.^8,11,30

In a clinical trial study, authors should present each adverse reaction or unintended consequence during the trial by name and the duration of the event. Provide the absolute risk of each adverse event (including the type, severity, and grade for each arm), and if appropriate, provide the relevant metrics for recurrent events, continuous variables, and scale variables. The results of the adverse effects of each study group within a trial should be presented individually. Authors may use graphs to display the distribution of the number of events per patient or perform time-to-event analysis.^8,11,18

Because of departures in philosophical and methodological perspectives, writing a qualitative “results section” is a bit more worrisome than doing quantitative findings. However, the author(s) should describe study participants as done in the quantitative findings. Then, the authors should succinctly the main findings in themes (major and minor themes) followed by the participants’ “quotations” to support a key interpretation of the data and to add trustworthiness to the findings.^21,22 When writing a scientific paper from a mixed method design studies still a further understanding and precaution of writing. Authors are required to integrate qualitative and quantitative data in the “results section” (interpretation and reporting) by three methods of integration: (1) integrating through narratives, (2) integrating through data transformation, and (3) integrating through joint displays.^22,31 For example, authors examining the link between poor healthcare worker support and antiretroviral therapy discontinuation may find logistic regression showing increased risk in the quantitative data, while qualitative data may either support or contradict these results. Both require a wonderful interpretation of how authors would explain their findings in the joint display methods. Checking reporting guidelines for mixed method designs and author guidelines of leading qualitative journals helps authors while writing the results section. Otherwise, like quantitative articles, authors may follow articles of the same design published in a target journal that the authors wish to publish.

When writing the “results section”, authors should avoid making two main mistakes anywhere in the “results sections”: (1) repeating the “method section” and “interpreting or discussing the findings” rather than leaving them alone for their sections.^{8,11,13,32,33}

Using tables and figures

Present numerical results in either a figure, table, or text, choosing a single format (avoid duplicating results across multiple formats).^8,30 Of the three ways, authors can present the numerical data using a figure a chart a table, or a text. Textual for more numerical values (over 6) in a sentence leads to reader disengagement and loss of readers’ attention.^8,30 Even if the individual sentence is fine, using many consecutive sentences with numbers on the same related points becomes tedious for many readers. Therefore, tables and figures are a more efficient way of presenting data than an author could do in words when created effectively.^{30,32,34–36} While deciding to use tables and figures, authors should cautiously examine the types of data and sizes of data. A well-designed table in a journal paper should be balanced in size, avoiding both too small and too huge contents. Despite no strict size of contents, if a table contains fewer than a dozen cells of information, it is probably best to present it as text. To improve readability, tables should be condensed to less than one-third or no more than one-half of a page in portrait orientation, as larger tables are less likely to support better comprehension of a topic.

Tables are most useful to present counts, proportions, and percentages, and are appropriate also for presenting details especially when exact values matter, being more informative than graphs.^34,36 Design tables with great precaution. First, carefully cleaned up to catch the readers’ eyes because it helps look smoothly across the rows and/or down the columns. Second, give attention to the graphic form of the table itself, as a container for the results or data. Thirdly, look at the entire table from a meter away to check whether the table is attractive to look at. Finally, verify repeatedly that all the numbers in the table are accurate, are not repeated in the text of the results, and are consistent with any repetition of those numbers in the other sections of the manuscript. Create informative anatomies (table number, table title, row headings, column headings, data in the data field, and horizontal lines) of tables to make them self-explanatory.^30,34,36

Authors should always plan and select figures for their main results or primary outcomes, if applicable to present them in figures. Then, authors can create further figures for secondary findings or other important findings. Because these are new knowledge authors would like to share it with the scientific community, healthcare implementers, policymakers, and interested readers. Analogous to tables, authors should select and design figures (graphs and charts) with clarity and in a scientific way. Hence, authors should follow guidelines on how to create good figures that serve the purpose. Avoid using any kind of 3-dimensional graphs as it demands the readers’ additional time and energy to comprehend a topic. Minimize using pie charts because they take up space for the very little information they could be used, and readers could not accurately perceive the relative proportions of the pie slices possibly due to the lack of a reference scale. Make graphs visually clear and depending on the data or results presented, they should be simple or smartly complex. Reduce any unnecessary marks and lines to avoid ambiguity and clutter. If additional statistics like p-values and others are required in the figure, they should be reported in the legend. Don’t use multiple colors in graphs unless having any special justification to make authors concentrate on the main results. The axes of a graph must be scaled and labeled correctly. The formatting and style of the figures should be consistent across all figures especially if the purpose of the figures is to compare distinct groups. For example, if a square represents cases and a circle represents controls in one of your figures, avoid reversing the symbols or avoid using other symbols (e.g. triangles) for controls in another one of the figures. Finally, authors should take care of their graph to fit the space allotted on the journal page, mostly recommended not more than about a quarter page.^30,34

Tables and figures should be related to texts in the manuscript. In the text, they should be cited in chronological order beginning with 1 (e.g., “Table 1, 2,3…”, and “Figure 1,2,3…”). For more illustration, look at the following citations in the text. “In the clinical trial, the treatment group recovered more quickly than the control group, but they had equivalent outcomes by the end of 1 year (Table 1). Lost to follow-up rate is higher than the previous clinical trial (Figure 1).” However, it is not advisable to use too many anthropomorphisms such as “Table 1 shows…” or “Figure 1 shows…,” to avoid unclarity and impreciseness of sentences or it could be regarded as unnecessary repetition. Some authors also suggest science writers can use anthropomorphism if the topic does not create confusion for readers. Most journals limit the number of tables and figures to 5 to 6. It is always recommended that authors check the guidelines of their target journal. Other illustrating tables and figures should be submitted to a target journal as supplementary files. The legends are often positioned above the tables and beneath the graphs and figures. It is advised to start the figure legends with the conclusion and end them with significant technical aspects.^{1,30,34,35,37} It is helpful to check the author guidelines of the target journal and check for further illustrations of various tables (p89-93) and graphs (pages 98-103). ³⁸

Reporting numbers and statistics

Be clear when presenting statistics ranging from simple descriptive to advanced forms of statistics. Presenting numerical values with one decimal place is recommended. Make consistent use of meaningful decimals for reported figures (e.g. if the patient’s mean weight is 73.798 kg, the readers put in their mind as 74 kg, so it would be meaningful to use “74 kg).^1,8,11,39 Authors should present percentages with absolute values from which it was calculated (e.g., ‘‘the percentage was 22% (33/150) in the case compared with 15% (23/150) in the control group’’).^11,33,39 Moreover, present measures of central tendency together with their appropriate measures of variability: mean (standard deviation) for normally distributed values or median (minimum, maximum values), interquartile range (lower quartile, upper quartiles) for skewed data values. ⁴⁰ Precise p values should be presented.^{8,11,32,33,40} Usually, it is acceptable to report p-values to two decimal places (round to the nearest 100th) when greater than 0.01; and three decimal places (round to the nearest 1000th) when less than 0.01. If a p-value is quite small, then it is acceptable to report it as a p-value less than 0.001. When results are reported, the magnitude of the difference between groups should be reported along with the p-value. Differences between groups should be estimated with a point estimate (e.g., absolute differences in means or proportions, rates (incidence rates, survival rates), ratios (odds ratios, hazard ratios), or risk (absolute risk, relative risks) whichever is the most appropriate for the outcomes) and confidence interval (CI). ⁴⁰

Present advanced statistical analysis with clear and simple explanations. The authors should not skip over those parts of the paper to avoid confusion. An experienced medical writer advises authors to present findings two times. ⁸ Firstly, present findings in the usual form that other advanced researchers would expect for the presentation of those results. Secondly, present and explain them again in such a way that a layperson can understand by restating and explaining them in simple terms. Look at the following example of how advanced statistics are reported two times in the result section: -

“Multivariate logistic regression analysis indicates that participants' knowledge about the availability of adolescent and youth-friendly sexual and reproductive health services at health facilities [AOR: 0.40, 95% CI: (0.26, 0.62), p-value = 0.001], utilization of adolescent and youth-friendly sexual and reproductive health services [AOR: 0.46, 95% CI: (0.29, 0.72), p-value = 0.001] and respondents' educational status of grade 9, [AOR: 3.21, (95% CI: ((1.16, 8.89) were statistically associated factors affecting adolescents for not communicating with parents on sexual and reproductive health issues. ⁴¹ ”

This can also be further explained as

“Those who had no information about the availability of AYFSRHs at health facilities were 60% less likely to communicate with their parents about sexual and reproductive health issues [AOR: 0.40, 95% CI: (0.26, 0.62), p-value = 0.001] than those who had. Likewise, those who had not utilized AYFSRHs were about 54% less likely to communicate with their parents when compared to those who had utilized the service [AOR: 0.46, 95% CI: (0.29, 0.72), p-value = 0.001]. Lower grade (grade 9) participants were about 3 times more likely to communicate about sexual and reproductive issues as compared to higher grades participants (grade twelve and above) [AOR: 3.21, 95%CI: (1.16, 8.89), p-value = 0.025].”

Generally, the first case is to be understood by advanced researchers and the latter can be for a layperson about statistics. If reporting in advanced forms is not required, it is suggested to present in its layman forms. Authors should follow specific guidelines of the target journal for reporting statistical analysis in the results section as they did for other elements to be reported. Relevant reporting guidelines like STROBE, ¹⁹ CONSORT, ¹⁸ SRQR, ²⁰ COREQ ²¹ PRISMA, ²³ and JBI ²⁴ might provide information on what types of statistics are to be reported in the “results section “of articles. However, these guidelines don’t exactly tell how those specific advanced statistics could be reported.

Creating language clarity and logical flow

Write the “results section” in the past tense because it was about “What was found”. As long as the authors are clear about who performed the action, they should use the active voice. ⁴² Fundamental principles of good scientific writing must include clarity, precision, and brevity of language. ⁸ The logical flow is a smooth and orderly progression of ideas, sentences, paragraphs, and content to effectively communicate findings in the “results section”. ⁹ It is not the only peculiar need of writing the “results section”, but for all sections of an article. The key purpose of the results section is to report the findings, the heart of an article. Language and logical flow matter most from the start of the paragraph to introducing the findings by reminding a research question to connect with previous sections of an article. The first task of the authors should be to draft the “results section” without any mental strain to get the scientific contents in place. Next, the brevity of writing will be achieved through several revisions. Logical flow is achieved through writing concise words, composing clear sentences, constructing well-structured paragraphs, connecting sentences and paragraphs using transitions to move on a smooth flow of ideas, and maintaining overall coherence. ⁹

Write concise words by choosing brief but comprehensive words that most effectively communicate findings. Pruning redundant words or overstated ideas and directly presenting the message to maintain readers’ attention. Use of correct terminology or specialized vocabulary, general academic vocabulary, precise words, and more formal words than using colloquial words. Compose clear sentences to improve readability and comprehension of the results section. To do so, focus on one topic, remove redundancy, and reduce fragments in between sentences (e.g., which, that, although, where, and when), and avoid starting a sentence with “While”, “Although”, “Despite the fact that”, “Whereas”, “Though” etc. Minimize using modifiers (e.g., very, basically, generally, specifically) and other qualitative/emotive words as readers might perceive them as an interpretation of findings. ³⁶ Such words are not precise enough to measurably speak the findings. Construct concise and clear paragraphs (5–7 sentences, but never have less than three sentences). Authors better start each paragraph with its main sentence and end with the last sentence which may help smooth the transition. Make a sentence as short (20-25 words)^9,43 whenever possible. Present the most important information early, and then proceed to the next relevant point as possible.^8,9,44 Avoid run-on sentences, ⁸ excessive gerunds, ⁴³ and punctuation errors.^15,43 Use connectors to link ideas or transit safely (e.g., besides, but, therefore, however, or consequently) 43. Finally, maintain idea flow precisely and logically to achieve coherence.

Don’t hesitate to consult guidelines for medical writing/academic writing to correctly use the English language ⁴⁴ and to avoid common mistakes in scientific communication. ⁴⁵ Read the editorial tips for publishing journals and academic writing websites to improve the brevity of scientific writing.

Discussion

One of the most prominent parts of scientific papers that pose a significant time and energy investment challenge for early career researchers in scientific writing is the ‘Results' section, a core component of the IMRAD framework. Failing to adhere to key standards of writing the “results section” of a scientific paper holds a lion’s share to unable communicate findings with the scientific and healthcare communities in early career researchers through publishing.^13,46 The likelihood that the findings will be translated into practice or add new information to existing biomedical science increases with communication through publication platforms in which writers must invest their energy, money, and time. Therefore, our review highlights the significance and content of the “result section”, structuring and presenting findings, utilizing effective presentation techniques, reporting statistics, and maintaining language and logical flow. Such scientific writing skills aid early career researchers in effectively conveying their findings to the scientific and healthcare communities, as well as diverse audiences through publishing in reputable and wider access journals.

Without the “Results section”, any manuscripts have no existential import. The section must concisely hold pertinent findings: recruitment/response, overall characteristics of the sample, primary outcomes, and secondary outcomes or other findings. Most reviewed materials highlighted two common inappropriate practices among authors: repeating method sections and interpreting findings, neglecting their reserved slots. Spending equal time revising as the authors did writing the first draft would address these issues.

Regarding the organization of the “results section”, biomedical articles often recommend organizing the ‘Results section' with subsections and subheadings.^{1,8,15,32,36,47} Subsections and subheadings enhance the manuscript structure, readability, content summarization, visual appeal, information retrieval, and logical flow. Authors should pick and include key data to be structured into more descriptive subsections and subheadings in the “results section” to keep findings of the same type together to be easily read and used by the readers.^8,32,36 This maintains the critical function of well written “results section” of the article. We suggest authors check on reporting guidelines that may provide a hint for subsections and subheadings of their manuscript depending on the study types and approaches.^18–23,48

The review presents standard guidelines for effectively using tables and graphs in the “results section”. Theoretically, a medical writer classifies optimal presentation techniques including textual form as a formal perspective and a functional perspective. ³⁰ The former considers how results will appear and their effect on the reader’s attention when forming data by figure versus table versus text. Accordingly, figures (graphs and charts) visually capture readers’ attention with a stronger impression than tables. However, the identification of numerical variable values is difficult during the superimposition of numbers. Whereas tables enable audiences to read many numbers at any level of numerical precision because data are organized in rows and columns. However, tables are less engaging and interesting for readers than figures. Texts according to the perspective take a lower position for catching the audience’s attention as well as can’t accommodate “many numbers” (greater than six numbers as a rule of thumb). ³⁰ The later perspective considers that each set of results serves within the “results section” take into consideration. Most readers will give their highest attention to the figures, medium attention to tables, and lowest attention to results in the text. Hence, authors should provide a priority for figures to use if possible. Authors shouldn’t choose tables or texts while presenting the data through figures is possible. They always must think in order of importance in functional perspectives to get readers engaged with the findings.

The review also suggests important experiences on how to present data in numbers such as percentages, p-values, and other advanced forms of statistics in the “results section”. The contents and form of the “results section” depend substantially on how the statistical analysis was performed and interpreted.^{8,39,40,49,50} Authors should plan statistics ranging from which data to analyze to how to purposefully interpret and report the necessary details in the “results section” and act accordingly. The authors need to keep the readers in mind when reporting advanced statistics (avoid too technical details) to better communicate findings to larger audiences. Consider the readers or audiences as a layperson, stick to the established approaches, and explain them in a way that all healthcare providers should understand. Despite not telling the art of reporting statistics, authors still can use statistical guidelines and other author guides of target journals, and/or consult statisticians and refer to method journals containing a similar statistic with the author’s study.

Spending equal time on language and logical flow as the authors did on the contents, structures, techniques of presentation, and statistics would add more improvements to the “results section”. The readers can quickly and easily understand content if authors can convey their ideas in a clear, concise, accurate, and brief manner. That is all about brevity.^43,45 Scientific findings are not generally to impress audiences, but to be easily understood and serve the purpose. To this end, authors should use concise and clear words and go in a smooth and orderly flow of ideas, sentences, paragraphs, and content toward a convincing conclusion 9, 43. To get brevity, revision is a powerful practice that authors should exercise. We agree with the significance of several revisions taking quotes from experienced medical writers “Revision is the difference between a bad first draft and a good publishable paper” (Chapter 36, p198). ³⁸

Conclusion

Writing the “result section” of a scientific paper requires practice and adherence to important guidelines. Our review highlights the significance and content of the “result section”, structuring and presenting findings, utilizing effective presentation techniques, reporting statistics, and maintaining language and logical flow. We suggested guidelines for authors to consider when writing “results sections” in biomedical scientific papers. Despite not being exhaustive lists, the guidelines at least provide authors with what key content to include, how to structure them, how to report statistics, how to present data using tables and figures, and how to keep appropriate language and logical flow. Above all, we strongly encourage authors to use available guidelines before submitting manuscripts to improve the “results section” of a manuscript. Hence, early career researchers effectively convey their findings to the scientific and healthcare communities, and wider audiences through publishing in reputable and wider access journals.

Limitation of the review

Advanced searching from different databases, as well as extensive searching of kinds of literature from other biomedical databases in addition to PubMed, were not made. Especially, providing illustrations for each figure and chart, and the art of reporting advanced statistics for layperson would require further reading, and could be potential review areas for methodologists. In addition, illustrations were not presented and that could reduce the usability of the recommendations.

Author’s note

is a doctoral candidate in Public Health in Epidemiology Concentration at Addis Ababa University. is a Professor of Public Health and Epidemiology at Addis Ababa University.