Writing Guidelines

Writing manuscripts

Workflow

  1. Summary results (= concept/outline in tracker)
    1. Decide on tables and figures (including format, etc)
    2. Bullet points per table or figure
    3. Main (bullet) point for discussion (= take home message)
    4. Get VDEC team buy-in before continuing
  2. Write results section
  3. Write methods section, use template/boilerplate text where possible
  4. Write discussion
  5. Write introduction
  6. Feedback/review cycle with VDEC team (= initial review in tracker)
  7. Write abstract
  8. Feedback/review cycle with VDEC team (= internal review in tracker)
  9. Collaborator review cycle (= external review in tracker)
  10. Finalize paper (with VDEC team) and submit
  11. Revisions if needed

Content

Keep the main story always in mind! Use STROBE statements to asses completeness of paper as well.

  • Abstract
  • Introduction (shorter for descriptive, more elaborate for hypothesis-testing MS)
    • Disease of interest (burden on society, trends)
    • Potential causes/prevention/predictors for/of disease/trends, especially relating to exposure of interest
    • Gaps in knowledge (needs to be well referenced)
    • Objectives
  • Methods (use templates whenever possible) Passive tense
    • One/two sentence intro of study design and use of admin data
    • Data sources (see templates)
      • Scope of population in databases [e.g., Manitoba health (universal coverage, etc.)]
      • Individual data sources (use official names and abbreviate all, coverage of data [time period, region/facilities], what is included)
    • Study design (split by design if more than 1)
      • Study population (eligibility, including study period + exclusion criteria, and why)
      • Cohorts or cases/controls
      • Outcomes (cohort study) or exposures (case-control studies)
      • Covariate description
      • Analysis
  • Results Note our table guidelines; Some detailed results might need to be moved to the supplement, but should only be included if (part of) the table is discussed in the results Passive tense
    • Descriptive results
      • Attrition/attrition diagram if appropriate
      • Table 1: Descriptive table
        • Describe population
        • Generalizability: Comparison to general population (case v controls in case-control study)
        • Validity: Comparability between groups, especially with regard to nuisance factors (potential confounders)
        • Point of interest = striking (contrasts); Set scene for later analysis
      • Table by exposures (if applicable)
      • Rates tables (cohort studies) of outcome(s)
    • Analytic results (if applicable)
      • Focus on main exposure (crude and adjusted)
      • Subgroups (different exposure/outcomes; more granular definition than binary)
      • Interactions (different subpopulations), even mention if no effect modification
      • Sensitivity analysis
  • Discussion
    • Summary of findings, “We found that …” Passive tense
      • 2-3 most relevant facts (tied to the objective above)
    • Implications relating to causality (Bradford Hill criteria), but be reasonable relating to the study
      • Temporality (cause before effect, no reverse causality)
      • Strength of association
      • Dose effect (biological gradient)
      • Specificity (no alternative explanation, very specific association)
      • Consistency (reproducibility for similar study designs)
      • Coherence (similar effect for vastly different study designs, e.g., between epidemiology and lab studies)
      • Analogy (similar effect for different exposure or outcome)
      • Etiological model (plausibility, there is some reasonable logic behind it)
    • Strengths and limitations
      • Random error
      • measurement error in exposure/outcome
      • Confounding
      • Bias
      • Reverse causality
    • Conclusion Active tense
24/08/2018