Taller de Seminario de titulacin

Discusin
Sergio Uribe Profesor Asociado

sergiouribe@uach.cl

Proceso experimental En breve, de qu trata todo esto? Cul es el problema? Cmo resolvimos el problema? Qu encontramos? Que signfica esto? Quines nos ayudaron?

Seccin del artculo Abstract o Resumen Introduccin Materiales y mtodos Resultados Discusin Agradecimientos

Quienes adems han trabajado en esto, o Referencias de dnde surgi este problema? Informacin adicional

sergiouribe@uach.cl

Proceso experimental En breve, de qu trata todo esto? Cul es el problema? Cmo resolvimos el problema? Qu encontramos? Que signfica esto? Quines nos ayudaron?

Seccin del artculo Abstract o Resumen Introduccin Materiales y mtodos Resultados Discusin Agradecimientos

Quienes adems han trabajado en esto, o Referencias de dnde surgi este problema? Informacin adicional Apndices o anexos
sergiouribe@uach.cl

Discusin

it is often the weakest part of the paper where careful explanation gives way to polemic.
Mullner, M., Groves, T. (2002). Making research papers in the BMJ more accessible. BMJ 325: 456-456

sergiouribe@uach.cl

Suggested structure for discussion of scientific papers

1. Statement of principal findings 2. Strengths and weaknesses of the study 3. Strengths and weaknesses in relation to other studies, discussing particularly any differences in results 4. Meaning of the study: possible mechanisms and implications for clinicians or policymakers 5. Unanswered questions and future research
BMJ 1999;318:1224-1225

sergiouribe@uach.cl

sergiouribe@uach.cl

sergiouribe@uach.cl

sergiouribe@uach.cl

sergiouribe@uach.cl

sergiouribe@uach.cl

sergiouribe@uach.cl

sergiouribe@uach.cl

sergiouribe@uach.cl

sergiouribe@uach.cl

sergiouribe@uach.cl

sergiouribe@uach.cl

sergiouribe@uach.cl

sergiouribe@uach.cl

sergiouribe@uach.cl

Suggested structure for discussion of scientific papers

1. Statement of principal findings 2. Strengths and weaknesses of the study 3. Strengths and weaknesses in relation to other studies, discussing particularly any differences in results 4. Meaning of the study: possible mechanisms and implications for clinicians or policymakers 5. Unanswered questions and future research
BMJ 1999;318:1224-1225

sergiouribe@uach.cl

Joshipura et al. J Dent Res. 75 (9): 1631

sergiouribe@uach.cl

sergiouribe@uach.cl

Do your results provide answers to your testable hypotheses? If so, how do you interpret your findings? Do your findings agree with what others have shown? If not, do they suggest an alternative explanation or perhaps a unforseen design flaw in your experiment (or theirs?) Given your conclusions, what is our new understanding of the problem you investigated and outlined in the Introduction? If warranted, what would be the next step in your study, e.g., what experiments would you do next?
http://abacus.bates.edu/~ganderso/biology/resources/writing/HTWsections.html

sergiouribe@uach.cl

Revisin

sergiouribe@uach.cl

sergiouribe@uach.cl

sergiouribe@uach.cl

sergiouribe@uach.cl