By Adam Landsman, DPM, PhD, FACFAS Gathering information from the scientific literature is a critical tool in the development and planning of a research project. First, it is important to establish what is already known about a particular field of interest. Second, it is beneficial to know what types of approaches have been used in the past to address a specific issue. Scientific manuscripts are designed to convey information and convince the readers that the information presented is factual. Either as a Researcher, or as a Clinician, it is critical that you develop a keen eye to help sort out the vast array of literature available to you, and incorporate only the most factual information available. Within the context of a scientific manuscript are contained several different levels of information, to suit a variety of needs. The Abstract is designed to give a brief synopsis of the methods, the data collected, and the most critical results. If you want to merely stay abreast of the latest developments, this is probably all that you will need to read. However, in many cases, the reader is looking for more detailed information, and will dive in to the body of the manuscript. The Introduction is designed to set the stage for a paper. It brings the paper into the current research context by discussing the existing literature, and identifying areas of conflict or gaps. When carefully written, it leads the reader right to the proposed project. Typically, the introduction ends with a statement of the Hypothesis. I have found that papers that contain a formal statement of the hypothesis are usually easier to read and understand, and are usually better organized and more scientifically sound. The Materials and Methods section is the one that I typically scrutinize most closely. Ideally, it is written in such a way that someone picking up your manuscript could duplicate the work that the scientist performed. Detail should be sufficient enough to give the reader a clear understanding of what was done. I examine this section closely because it will typically expose the flaws intrinsic to the study . . . and all studies have flaws. The question is whether or not the flaws are so substantial as to invalidate the conclusions of the study. Most commonly, I find that the authors fail to discuss the manner in which the data will be analyzed (i.e. statistical analysis). In my opinion, it is often not so interesting to read, but is critical in order to determine the quality of the data presented. Following the Materials and Methods section, the Results can be found. This should consist of a clear statement of facts, with statistically meaningful statements to support these findings. Interpretation of the data is typically saved for later sections. Data is interpreted in the Discussion section. It is here that the author(s) will reveal what they feel are the shortcomings of the study. They should also discuss any discrepancies from what they had anticipated finding. The author often compares their findings to that of other investigators in this section as well. In my opinion, a well-written Discussion works through all of the potentially contradictory or conflicting points of view, and attempts to either resolve them or explain them. This naturally leads to the Conclusions section, which is a summary of the most critical points. In addition, many authors utilize the Conclusions section to set the stage for their next research project. Since the limitations of the existing study were identified in the Discussion, the Conclusions section discusses remedies for these shortcomings. When I read a manuscript, I examine it with a critical eye. Keep in mind that each paper you read will influence your thought process and may ultimately be reflected in the patient care you render. Most of us can probably recall a new procedure that may have been initially touted as being the greatest, but has since fallen into disfavor. I imagine that if you went back and reviewed the original data on these subjects, that you would find that the data may have been primarily anecdotal in nature. Certainly hindsight is nearly always 20/20. However, putting your glasses on and reading with a critical eye is also very important. Always consider whether or not appropriate statistical tests were performed, and how the data was collected. I imagine that you will find that there are far fewer pearls at the bottom of the ocean then was originally thought! Source: ACFAS Bulletin, Sept/Oct 2000