how to write a disease research paper

• PRO Courses Guides New Tech Help Pro Expert Videos About wikiHow Pro Upgrade Sign In
• EDIT Edit this Article
• EXPLORE Tech Help Pro About Us Random Article Quizzes Request a New Article Community Dashboard This Or That Game Happiness Hub Popular Categories Arts and Entertainment Artwork Books Movies Computers and Electronics Computers Phone Skills Technology Hacks Health Men's Health Mental Health Women's Health Relationships Dating Love Relationship Issues Hobbies and Crafts Crafts Drawing Games Education & Communication Communication Skills Personal Development Studying Personal Care and Style Fashion Hair Care Personal Hygiene Youth Personal Care School Stuff Dating All Categories Arts and Entertainment Finance and Business Home and Garden Relationship Quizzes Cars & Other Vehicles Food and Entertaining Personal Care and Style Sports and Fitness Computers and Electronics Health Pets and Animals Travel Education & Communication Hobbies and Crafts Philosophy and Religion Work World Family Life Holidays and Traditions Relationships Youth
• Browse Articles
• Learn Something New
• Quizzes Hot
• Happiness Hub
• This Or That Game
• Train Your Brain
• Explore More
• Support wikiHow
• About wikiHow
• Log in / Sign up
• Education and Communications
• College University and Postgraduate
• Academic Writing
• Research Papers

How to Write a Medical Research Paper

Last Updated: August 12, 2024 Approved

This article was co-authored by Chris M. Matsko, MD . Dr. Chris M. Matsko is a retired physician based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. With over 25 years of medical research experience, Dr. Matsko was awarded the Pittsburgh Cornell University Leadership Award for Excellence. He holds a BS in Nutritional Science from Cornell University and an MD from the Temple University School of Medicine in 2007. Dr. Matsko earned a Research Writing Certification from the American Medical Writers Association (AMWA) in 2016 and a Medical Writing & Editing Certification from the University of Chicago in 2017. wikiHow marks an article as reader-approved once it receives enough positive feedback. In this case, 89% of readers who voted found the article helpful, earning it our reader-approved status. This article has been viewed 205,153 times.

Writing a medical research paper is similar to writing other research papers in that you want to use reliable sources, write in a clear and organized style, and offer a strong argument for all conclusions you present. In some cases the research you discuss will be data you have actually collected to answer your research questions. Understanding proper formatting, citations, and style will help you write and informative and respected paper.

Researching Your Paper

• Pick something that really interests you to make the research more fun.
• Choose a topic that has unanswered questions and propose solutions.

• Quantitative studies consist of original research performed by the writer. These research papers will need to include sections like Hypothesis (or Research Question), Previous Findings, Method, Limitations, Results, Discussion, and Application.
• Synthesis papers review the research already published and analyze it. They find weaknesses and strengths in the research, apply it to a specific situation, and then indicate a direction for future research.

• Keep track of your sources. Write down all publication information necessary for citation: author, title of article, title of book or journal, publisher, edition, date published, volume number, issue number, page number, and anything else pertaining to your source. A program like Endnote can help you keep track of your sources.
• Take detailed notes as you read. Paraphrase information in your own words or if you copy directly from the article or book, indicate that these are direct quotes by using quotation marks to prevent plagiarism.
• Be sure to keep all of your notes with the correct source.
• Your professor and librarians can also help you find good resources.

• Keep all of your notes in a physical folder or in a digitized form on the computer.
• Start to form the basic outline of your paper using the notes you have collected.

Writing Your Paper

• Start with bullet points and then add in notes you've taken from references that support your ideas. [1] X Trustworthy Source PubMed Central Journal archive from the U.S. National Institutes of Health Go to source
• A common way to format research papers is to follow the IMRAD format. This dictates the structure of your paper in the following order: I ntroduction, M ethods, R esults, a nd D iscussion. [2] X Research source
• The outline is just the basic structure of your paper. Don't worry if you have to rearrange a few times to get it right.
• Ask others to look over your outline and get feedback on the organization.
• Know the audience you are writing for and adjust your style accordingly. [3] X Research source

• Use a standard font type and size, such as Times New Roman 12 point font.
• Double-space your paper.
• If necessary, create a cover page. Most schools require a cover page of some sort. Include your main title, running title (often a shortened version of your main title), author's name, course name, and semester.

• Break up information into sections and subsections and address one main point per section.
• Include any figures or data tables that support your main ideas.
• For a quantitative study, state the methods used to obtain results.

• Clearly state and summarize the main points of your research paper.
• Discuss how this research contributes to the field and why it is important. [4] X Research source
• Highlight potential applications of the theory if appropriate.
• Propose future directions that build upon the research you have presented. [5] X Research source
• Keep the introduction and discussion short, and spend more time explaining the methods and results.

• State why the problem is important to address.
• Discuss what is currently known and what is lacking in the field.
• State the objective of your paper.
• Keep the introduction short.

• Highlight the purpose of the paper and the main conclusions.
• State why your conclusions are important.
• Be concise in your summary of the paper.
• Show that you have a solid study design and a high-quality data set.
• Abstracts are usually one paragraph and between 250 – 500 words.

• Unless otherwise directed, use the American Medical Association (AMA) style guide to properly format citations.
• Add citations at end of a sentence to indicate that you are using someone else's idea. Use these throughout your research paper as needed. They include the author's last name, year of publication, and page number.
• Compile your reference list and add it to the end of your paper.
• Use a citation program if you have access to one to simplify the process.

• Continually revise your paper to make sure it is structured in a logical way.
• Proofread your paper for spelling and grammatical errors.
• Make sure you are following the proper formatting guidelines provided for the paper.
• Have others read your paper to proofread and check for clarity. Revise as needed.

Expert Q&A

• Ask your professor for help if you are stuck or confused about any part of your research paper. They are familiar with the style and structure of papers and can provide you with more resources. Thanks Helpful 0 Not Helpful 0
• Refer to your professor's specific guidelines. Some instructors modify parts of a research paper to better fit their assignment. Others may request supplementary details, such as a synopsis for your research project . Thanks Helpful 0 Not Helpful 0
• Set aside blocks of time specifically for writing each day. Thanks Helpful 0 Not Helpful 0

• Do not plagiarize. Plagiarism is using someone else's work, words, or ideas and presenting them as your own. It is important to cite all sources in your research paper, both through internal citations and on your reference page. Thanks Helpful 4 Not Helpful 2

You Might Also Like

• ↑ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3178846/
• ↑ http://owl.excelsior.edu/research-and-citations/outlining/outlining-imrad/
• ↑ http://china.elsevier.com/ElsevierDNN/Portals/7/How%20to%20write%20a%20world-class%20paper.pdf
• ↑ http://intqhc.oxfordjournals.org/content/16/3/191
• ↑ http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~bioslabs/tools/report/reportform.html#form

About This Article

To write a medical research paper, research your topic thoroughly and compile your data. Next, organize your notes and create a strong outline that breaks up the information into sections and subsections, addressing one main point per section. Write the results and discussion sections first to go over your findings, then write the introduction to state your objective and provide background information. Finally, write the abstract, which concisely summarizes the article by highlighting the main points. For tips on formatting and using citations, read on! Did this summary help you? Yes No

• Send fan mail to authors

Reader Success Stories

Joshua Benibo

Jun 5, 2018

Did this article help you?

Dominic Cipriano

Aug 16, 2016

Obiajulu Echedom

Apr 2, 2017

Noura Ammar Alhossiny

Feb 14, 2017

Dawn Daniel

Apr 20, 2017

Featured Articles

Trending Articles

Watch Articles

• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Do Not Sell or Share My Info
• Not Selling Info

Don’t miss out! Sign up for

wikiHow’s newsletter

Official websites use .gov

A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS

A lock ( ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Successful Scientific Writing and Publishing: A Step-by-Step Approach

TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES — Volume 15 — June 14, 2018

John K. Iskander, MD, MPH 1 ; Sara Beth Wolicki, MPH, CPH 1 ,2 ; Rebecca T. Leeb, PhD 1 ; Paul Z. Siegel, MD, MPH 1 ( View author affiliations )

Suggested citation for this article: Iskander JK, Wolicki SB, Leeb RT, Siegel PZ. Successful Scientific Writing and Publishing: A Step-by-Step Approach. [Erratum appears in Prev Chronic Dis 2018;15. http://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2018/18_0085e.htm .]  Prev Chronic Dis 2018;15:180085. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5888/pcd15.180085 .

Introduction

Basic recommendations for scientific writing, sections of an original research article, beginning the writing process, acknowledgments, author information.

Scientific writing and publication are essential to advancing knowledge and practice in public health, but prospective authors face substantial challenges. Authors can overcome barriers, such as lack of understanding about scientific writing and the publishing process, with training and resources. The objective of this article is to provide guidance and practical recommendations to help both inexperienced and experienced authors working in public health settings to more efficiently publish the results of their work in the peer-reviewed literature. We include an overview of basic scientific writing principles, a detailed description of the sections of an original research article, and practical recommendations for selecting a journal and responding to peer review comments. The overall approach and strategies presented are intended to contribute to individual career development while also increasing the external validity of published literature and promoting quality public health science.

Publishing in the peer-reviewed literature is essential to advancing science and its translation to practice in public health (1,2). The public health workforce is diverse and practices in a variety of settings (3). For some public health professionals, writing and publishing the results of their work is a requirement. Others, such as program managers, policy makers, or health educators, may see publishing as being outside the scope of their responsibilities (4).

Disseminating new knowledge via writing and publishing is vital both to authors and to the field of public health (5). On an individual level, publishing is associated with professional development and career advancement (6). Publications share new research, results, and methods in a trusted format and advance scientific knowledge and practice (1,7). As more public health professionals are empowered to publish, the science and practice of public health will advance (1).

Unfortunately, prospective authors face barriers to publishing their work, including navigating the process of scientific writing and publishing, which can be time-consuming and cumbersome. Often, public health professionals lack both training opportunities and understanding of the process (8). To address these barriers and encourage public health professionals to publish their findings, the senior author (P.Z.S.) and others developed Successful Scientific Writing (SSW), a course about scientific writing and publishing. Over the past 30 years, this course has been taught to thousands of public health professionals, as well as hundreds of students at multiple graduate schools of public health. An unpublished longitudinal survey of course participants indicated that two-thirds agreed that SSW had helped them to publish a scientific manuscript or have a conference abstract accepted. The course content has been translated into this manuscript. The objective of this article is to provide prospective authors with the tools needed to write original research articles of high quality that have a good chance of being published.

Prospective authors need to know and tailor their writing to the audience. When writing for scientific journals, 4 fundamental recommendations are: clearly stating the usefulness of the study, formulating a key message, limiting unnecessary words, and using strategic sentence structure.

To demonstrate usefulness, focus on how the study addresses a meaningful gap in current knowledge or understanding. What critical piece of information does the study provide that will help solve an important public health problem? For example, if a particular group of people is at higher risk for a specific condition, but the magnitude of that risk is unknown, a study to quantify the risk could be important for measuring the population’s burden of disease.

Scientific articles should have a clear and concise take-home message. Typically, this is expressed in 1 to 2 sentences that summarize the main point of the paper. This message can be used to focus the presentation of background information, results, and discussion of findings. As an early step in the drafting of an article, we recommend writing out the take-home message and sharing it with co-authors for their review and comment. Authors who know their key point are better able to keep their writing within the scope of the article and present information more succinctly. Once an initial draft of the manuscript is complete, the take-home message can be used to review the content and remove needless words, sentences, or paragraphs.

Concise writing improves the clarity of an article. Including additional words or clauses can divert from the main message and confuse the reader. Additionally, journal articles are typically limited by word count. The most important words and phrases to eliminate are those that do not add meaning, or are duplicative. Often, cutting adjectives or parenthetical statements results in a more concise paper that is also easier to read.

Sentence structure strongly influences the readability and comprehension of journal articles. Twenty to 25 words is a reasonable range for maximum sentence length. Limit the number of clauses per sentence, and place the most important or relevant clause at the end of the sentence (9). Consider the sentences:

By using these tips and tricks, an author may write and publish an additional 2 articles a year.

An author may write and publish an additional 2 articles a year by using these tips and tricks.

The focus of the first sentence is on the impact of using the tips and tricks, that is, 2 more articles published per year. In contrast, the second sentence focuses on the tips and tricks themselves.

Authors should use the active voice whenever possible. Consider the following example:

Active voice: Authors who use the active voice write more clearly.

Passive voice: Clarity of writing is promoted by the use of the active voice.

The active voice specifies who is doing the action described in the sentence. Using the active voice improves clarity and understanding, and generally uses fewer words. Scientific writing includes both active and passive voice, but authors should be intentional with their use of either one.

Original research articles make up most of the peer-reviewed literature (10), follow a standardized format, and are the focus of this article. The 4 main sections are the introduction, methods, results, and discussion, sometimes referred to by the initialism, IMRAD. These 4 sections are referred to as the body of an article. Two additional components of all peer-reviewed articles are the title and the abstract. Each section’s purpose and key components, along with specific recommendations for writing each section, are listed below.

Title. The purpose of a title is twofold: to provide an accurate and informative summary and to attract the target audience. Both prospective readers and database search engines use the title to screen articles for relevance (2). All titles should clearly state the topic being studied. The topic includes the who, what, when, and where of the study. Along with the topic, select 1 or 2 of the following items to include within the title: methods, results, conclusions, or named data set or study. The items chosen should emphasize what is new and useful about the study. Some sources recommend limiting the title to less than 150 characters (2). Articles with shorter titles are more frequently cited than articles with longer titles (11). Several title options are possible for the same study (Figure).

Figure 1. Two examples of title options for a single study. [A text version of this figure is also available.]

Abstract . The abstract serves 2 key functions. Journals may screen articles for potential publication by using the abstract alone (12), and readers may use the abstract to decide whether to read further. Therefore, it is critical to produce an accurate and clear abstract that highlights the major purpose of the study, basic procedures, main findings, and principal conclusions (12). Most abstracts have a word limit and can be either structured following IMRAD, or unstructured. The abstract needs to stand alone from the article and tell the most important parts of the scientific story up front.

Introduction . The purpose of the introduction is to explain how the study sought to create knowledge that is new and useful. The introduction section may often require only 3 paragraphs. First, describe the scope, nature, or magnitude of the problem being addressed. Next, clearly articulate why better understanding this problem is useful, including what is currently known and the limitations of relevant previous studies. Finally, explain what the present study adds to the knowledge base. Explicitly state whether data were collected in a unique way or obtained from a previously unstudied data set or population. Presenting both the usefulness and novelty of the approach taken will prepare the reader for the remaining sections of the article.

Methods . The methods section provides the information necessary to allow others, given the same data, to recreate the analysis. It describes exactly how data relevant to the study purpose were collected, organized, and analyzed. The methods section describes the process of conducting the study — from how the sample was selected to which statistical methods were used to analyze the data. Authors should clearly name, define, and describe each study variable. Some journals allow detailed methods to be included in an appendix or supplementary document. If the analysis involves a commonly used public health data set, such as the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (13), general aspects of the data set can be provided to readers by using references. Because what was done is typically more important than who did it, use of the passive voice is often appropriate when describing methods. For example, “The study was a group randomized, controlled trial. A coin was tossed to select an intervention group and a control group.”

Results . The results section describes the main outcomes of the study or analysis but does not interpret the findings or place them in the context of previous research. It is important that the results be logically organized. Suggested organization strategies include presenting results pertaining to the entire population first, and then subgroup analyses, or presenting results according to increasing complexity of analysis, starting with demographic results before proceeding to univariate and multivariate analyses. Authors wishing to draw special attention to novel or unexpected results can present them first.

One strategy for writing the results section is to start by first drafting the figures and tables. Figures, which typically show trends or relationships, and tables, which show specific data points, should each support a main outcome of the study. Identify the figures and tables that best describe the findings and relate to the study’s purpose, and then develop 1 to 2 sentences summarizing each one. Data not relevant to the study purpose may be excluded, summarized briefly in the text, or included in supplemental data sets. When finalizing figures, ensure that axes are labeled and that readers can understand figures without having to refer to accompanying text.

Discussion . In the discussion section, authors interpret the results of their study within the context of both the related literature and the specific scientific gap the study was intended to fill. The discussion does not introduce results that were not presented in the results section. One way authors can focus their discussion is to limit this section to 4 paragraphs: start by reinforcing the study’s take-home message(s), contextualize key results within the relevant literature, state the study limitations, and lastly, make recommendations for further research or policy and practice changes. Authors can support assertions made in the discussion with either their own findings or by referencing related research. By interpreting their own study results and comparing them to others in the literature, authors can emphasize findings that are unique, useful, and relevant. Present study limitations clearly and without apology. Finally, state the implications of the study and provide recommendations or next steps, for example, further research into remaining gaps or changes to practice or policy. Statements or recommendations regarding policy may use the passive voice, especially in instances where the action to be taken is more important than who will implement the action.

The process of writing a scientific article occurs before, during, and after conducting the study or analyses. Conducting a literature review is crucial to confirm the existence of the evidence gap that the planned analysis seeks to fill. Because literature searches are often part of applying for research funding or developing a study protocol, the citations used in the grant application or study proposal can also be used in subsequent manuscripts. Full-text databases such as PubMed Central (14), NIH RePORT (15), and CDC Stacks (16) can be useful when performing literature reviews. Authors should familiarize themselves with databases that are accessible through their institution and any assistance that may be available from reference librarians or interlibrary loan systems. Using citation management software is one way to establish and maintain a working reference list. Authors should clearly understand the distinction between primary and secondary references, and ensure that they are knowledgeable about the content of any primary or secondary reference that they cite.

Review of the literature may continue while organizing the material and writing begins. One way to organize material is to create an outline for the paper. Another way is to begin drafting small sections of the article such as the introduction. Starting a preliminary draft forces authors to establish the scope of their analysis and clearly articulate what is new and novel about the study. Furthermore, using information from the study protocol or proposal allows authors to draft the methods and part of the results sections while the study is in progress. Planning potential data comparisons or drafting “table shells” will help to ensure that the study team has collected all the necessary data. Drafting these preliminary sections early during the writing process and seeking feedback from co-authors and colleagues may help authors avoid potential pitfalls, including misunderstandings about study objectives.

The next step is to conduct the study or analyses and use the resulting data to fill in the draft table shells. The initial results will most likely require secondary analyses, that is, exploring the data in ways in addition to those originally planned. Authors should ensure that they regularly update their methods section to describe all changes to data analysis.

After completing table shells, authors should summarize the key finding of each table or figure in a sentence or two. Presenting preliminary results at meetings, conferences, and internal seminars is an established way to solicit feedback. Authors should pay close attention to questions asked by the audience, treating them as an informal opportunity for peer review. On the basis of the questions and feedback received, authors can incorporate revisions and improvements into subsequent drafts of the manuscript.

The relevant literature should be revisited periodically while writing to ensure knowledge of the most recent publications about the manuscript topic. Authors should focus on content and key message during the process of writing the first draft and should not spend too much time on issues of grammar or style. Drafts, or portions of drafts, should be shared frequently with trusted colleagues. Their recommendations should be reviewed and incorporated when they will improve the manuscript’s overall clarity.

For most authors, revising drafts of the manuscript will be the most time-consuming task involved in writing a paper. By regularly checking in with coauthors and colleagues, authors can adopt a systematic approach to rewriting. When the author has completed a draft of the manuscript, he or she should revisit the key take-home message to ensure that it still matches the final data and analysis. At this point, final comments and approval of the manuscript by coauthors can be sought.

Authors should then seek to identify journals most likely to be interested in considering the study for publication. Initial questions to consider when selecting a journal include:

Which audience is most interested in the paper’s message?

Would clinicians, public health practitioners, policy makers, scientists, or a broader audience find this useful in their field or practice?

Do colleagues have prior experience submitting a manuscript to this journal?

Is the journal indexed and peer-reviewed?

Is the journal subscription or open-access and are there any processing fees?

How competitive is the journal?

Authors should seek to balance the desire to be published in a top-tier journal (eg, Journal of the American Medical Association, BMJ, or Lancet) against the statistical likelihood of rejection. Submitting the paper initially to a journal more focused on the paper’s target audience may result in a greater chance of acceptance, as well as more timely dissemination of findings that can be translated into practice. Most of the 50 to 75 manuscripts published each week by authors from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) are published in specialty and subspecialty journals, rather than in top-tier journals (17).

The target journal’s website will include author guidelines, which will contain specific information about format requirements (eg, font, line spacing, section order, reference style and limit, table and figure formatting), authorship criteria, article types, and word limits for articles and abstracts.

We recommend returning to the previously drafted abstract and ensuring that it complies with the journal’s format and word limit. Authors should also verify that any changes made to the methods or results sections during the article’s drafting are reflected in the final version of the abstract. The abstract should not be written hurriedly just before submitting the manuscript; it is often apparent to editors and reviewers when this has happened. A cover letter to accompany the submission should be drafted; new and useful findings and the key message should be included.

Before submitting the manuscript and cover letter, authors should perform a final check to ensure that their paper complies with all journal requirements. Journals may elect to reject certain submissions on the basis of review of the abstract, or may send them to peer reviewers (typically 2 or 3) for consultation. Occasionally, on the basis of peer reviews, the journal will request only minor changes before accepting the paper for publication. Much more frequently, authors will receive a request to revise and resubmit their manuscript, taking into account peer review comments. Authors should recognize that while revise-and-resubmit requests may state that the manuscript is not acceptable in its current form, this does not constitute a rejection of the article. Authors have several options in responding to peer review comments:

Performing additional analyses and updating the article appropriately

Declining to perform additional analyses, but providing an explanation (eg, because the requested analysis goes beyond the scope of the article)

Providing updated references

Acknowledging reviewer comments that are simply comments without making changes

In addition to submitting a revised manuscript, authors should include a cover letter in which they list peer reviewer comments, along with the revisions they have made to the manuscript and their reply to the comment. The tone of such letters should be thankful and polite, but authors should make clear areas of disagreement with peer reviewers, and explain why they disagree. During the peer review process, authors should continue to consult with colleagues, especially ones who have more experience with the specific journal or with the peer review process.

There is no secret to successful scientific writing and publishing. By adopting a systematic approach and by regularly seeking feedback from trusted colleagues throughout the study, writing, and article submission process, authors can increase their likelihood of not only publishing original research articles of high quality but also becoming more scientifically productive overall.

The authors acknowledge PCD ’s former Associate Editor, Richard A. Goodman, MD, MPH, who, while serving as Editor in Chief of CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report Series, initiated a curriculum on scientific writing for training CDC’s Epidemic Intelligence Service Officers and other CDC public health professionals, and with whom the senior author of this article (P.Z.S.) collaborated in expanding training methods and contents, some of which are contained in this article. The authors acknowledge Juan Carlos Zevallos, MD, for his thoughtful critique and careful editing of previous Successful Scientific Writing materials. We also thank Shira Eisenberg for editorial assistance with the manuscript. This publication was supported by the Cooperative Agreement no. 1U360E000002 from CDC and the Association of Schools and Programs of Public Health. The findings and conclusions of this article do not necessarily represent the official views of CDC or the Association of Schools and Programs of Public Health. Names of journals and citation databases are provided for identification purposes only and do not constitute any endorsement by CDC.

Corresponding Author: John Iskander, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Rd, NE, Atlanta, GA. Telephone: 404-639-8889. Email: [email protected] .

Author Affiliations: 1 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. 2 Association of Schools and Programs of Public Health, Washington, District of Columbia.

• Azer SA, Dupras DM, Azer S. Writing for publication in medical education in high impact journals. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 2014;18(19):2966–81. PubMed
• Vitse CL, Poland GA. Writing a scientific paper — a brief guide for new investigators. Vaccine 2017;35(5):722–8. CrossRef PubMed
• Sellers K, Leider JP, Harper E, Castrucci BC, Bharthapudi K, Liss-Levinson R, et al. The Public Health Workforce Interests and Needs Survey: the first national survey of state health agency employees. J Public Health Manag Pract 2015;21(Suppl 6):S13–27. CrossRef PubMed
• Salas-Lopez D, Deitrick L, Mahady ET, Moser K, Gertner EJ, Sabino JN. Getting published in an academic-community hospital: the success of writing groups. J Gen Intern Med 2012;27(1):113–6. CrossRef PubMed
• Azer SA, Ramani S, Peterson R. Becoming a peer reviewer to medical education journals. Med Teach 2012;34(9):698–704. CrossRef PubMed
• Baldwin C, Chandler GE. Improving faculty publication output: the role of a writing coach. J Prof Nurs 2002;18(1):8–15. CrossRef PubMed
• Nicholas D, Watkinson A, Jamali H, Herman E, Tenopir C, Volentine R, et al. Peer review: still king in the digital age. Learn Publ 2015;28(1):15–21. CrossRef
• Crowson MG. A crash course in medical writing for health profession students. J Cancer Educ 2013;28(3):554–7. CrossRef PubMed
• Gopen GD, Swan JA. The science of scientific writing. Am Sci 1990;78(6):550–8.
• Ecarnot F, Seronde MF, Chopard R, Schiele F, Meneveau N. Writing a scientific article: a step-by-step guide for beginners. Eur Geriatr Med 2015;6(6):573–9. CrossRef
• Letchford A, Moat HS, Preis T. The advantage of short paper titles. R Soc Open Sci 2015;2(8):150266. CrossRef PubMed
• Groves T, Abbasi K. Screening research papers by reading abstracts. BMJ 2004;329(7464):470–1. CrossRef PubMed
• Xu F, Mawokomatanda T, Flegel D, Pierannunzi C, Garvin W, Chowdhury P, et al. ; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Surveillance for certain health behaviors among states and selected local areas — Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, United States, 2011. MMWR Surveill Summ 2014;63(9):1–149. PubMed
• PubMed Central https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/. Accessed April 22, 2018.
• National Institutes of Health Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools (RePORT) https://report.nih.gov/ .Accessed April 25, 2018.
• CDC Stacks. https://stacks.cdc.gov/welcome. Accessed April 25, 2018.
• Iskander J, Bang G, Stupp E, Connick K, Gomez O, Gidudu J. Articles Published and Downloaded by Public Health Scientists: Analysis of Data From the CDC Public Health Library, 2011-2013. J Public Health Manag Pract 2016;22(4):409–14. CrossRef PubMed

The opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors’ affiliated institutions.

Introduction

Subjects and methods, acknowledgment, how to write a research paper.

• Split-Screen
• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data
• Peer Review
• Open the PDF for in another window
• Get Permissions
• Cite Icon Cite
• Search Site

Andrei V. Alexandrov; How to Write a Research Paper. Cerebrovasc Dis 1 August 2004; 18 (2): 135–138. https://doi.org/10.1159/000079266

Download citation file:

• Ris (Zotero)
• Reference Manager

Background: Busy strokologists often find little time for scientific writing. They sometimes develop a mental condition equivalent to that known by neurologists as writer’s cramp. It may result in permanent damage to academic career. This paper provides advice how to prevent or treat this condition. Methods: Prepare your manuscript following the IMRaD principle (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion), with every part supporting the key message. When writing, be concise. Clearly state your methods here, while data belong to Results. Successful submissions combine quality new data or new thinking with lucid presentation. Results: Provide data that answer the research question. Describe here most important numeric data and statistics, keeping in mind that the shorter you can present them, the better. The scientific community screens abstracts to decide which full text papers to read. Make your point with data, not arguments. Conclusions: Conclusions have to be based on the present study findings. The time of lengthy and unfounded speculations is over. A simple message in a clearly written manuscript will get noticed and may advance our understanding of stroke.

By now you probably wrote an abstract and submitted it to a stroke conference. Your mentor reminds you several times to start drafting a paper, and you have no idea where to start. As a simple trick, copy and paste your abstract so that Background becomes your introduction. For the rest, follow the IMRaD principle: Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion [ 1, 2, 3 ]. Think what ‘take home message’ you’d like to deliver and to whom. The title sells the paper.

‘Busy strokologists often find little time ... to treat this condition’: this introduction concisely describes the study hypothesis, rationale, purpose, and objectives. A three-paragraph introduction is plenty for most topics. Expand with facts from papers previously published by others, among whom you may occasionally find your mentor. Do a thorough literature search for earlier sources dealing with your subject [ 4, 5, 6 ]. Tell here what is known in the field. You do not need to refer to every paper ever written on this topic. Select key references and remember that for publishing purposes, less is better than more. Consult your mentor as often as possible – he is the senior author after all.

The third paragraph should state the research question [ 7 ]. You may take an original paper already published in Cerebrovascular Diseases to use as a template. Formulate the research question clearly since data presentation should provide equally clear answers.

The first author drafts the manuscript and determines co-authors [ 8 ]. Although general guidelines are available [ 8 ], the reality often demands seeking advice from your mentor. Inappropriate inclusion of authors will decrease the likelihood of manuscript acceptance.

Describe subject selection criteria and data collection tools. Make this description detailed enough so that if someone wants to repeat the study, it will be possible. If new imaging technology was used, tell how and by whom these tests were validated. Avoid presenting actual data in this section: ‘Study subjects were recruited from 1,215 patients admitted to our stroke unit from August 1999 through August 2002’. Instead say: ‘Study subjects were recruited from consecutive patients admitted to our stroke unit. Inclusion criteria were ...’. Methods may disclose power calculations, estimated sample size, and stopping rules.

Provide additional evidence that would increase confidence in the reliability of your methods. Control for biases, validation of research tools, ‘blinding’ of observers – all of these facts, if established before the study initiation, will strengthen the manuscript. Describe in detail the outcome models or dependent variables. For clinical outcomes or surrogate markers, reference a pivotal trial or study that established their relevance.

Documentation of protection of research subjects is essential. Clearly state if a local ethics committee approved your study. This ensures patients or animal rights protection, particularly if experiments were performed. The author also needs to disclose funding sources and potential for commercial bias such as connections with the pharmaceutical industry. Data safety monitoring, independent data acquisition and analysis during clinical trials and appropriate overseeing committees should be mentioned if applicable.

Major scientific journals currently accept less than 25% of submitted manuscripts. If rejected, it does not necessarily mean your manuscript is poor. Rejection means that reviewers did not give it a high enough priority. You should not be too disappointed because, after all, you got very good advice how to improve your manuscript. Follow reviewers’ suggestions and you increase the likelihood that another esteemed journal will accept it. The most important factors for publication are the quality, novelty, reliability and scientific or clinical importance of your work. A manuscript should disclose new information or a new way of thinking about old information. If not, it will not be published – regardless of how well it is written. Avoid redundant or duplicate publications since these should not be published. Scientific publishing is extremely competitive, and chances are that by the time you conceived the project, 10 other groups were already doing it and 5 others have already published it. Stay on top of current literature and know the limitations of research done by others.

The last paragraph of this section should describe tools of statistical analysis appropriate to study design. Consult a statistician before embarking on a project, work with a statistician to analyze and interpret the data, and have a statistician reviewing the whole manuscript for clarity of statistical analysis and data presentation.

Your results are the most important part of the manuscript. Present them clearly by avoiding long and confusing sentences. The shorter you can present your data in tables and figures, the better. Remain focused and disciplined. The flurry of numbers and ‘p’ values should follow simple logics. Start by describing your study subjects, use actual numbers for study demographics. Avoid opening sentences like: ‘Table 1 summarizes our findings in sub-group C’. This makes reviewers frustrated since they have to flip back and forth through pages to understand what was done to study subjects.

Make data presentation so clear and simple that a tired person riding late on an airplane can take your manuscript and get the message at first reading. Very few people can write a perfect manuscript on the first draft. Return to the draft, read it, change cumbersome parts, read other papers and change the draft again, and again, and again. I still do it before I give the manuscript to my co-authors. But do not hold it for too long. Remember, ‘10 other groups ...’.

Present results to colleagues since they would likely ask for more data or analyses. Most likely the reviewers of any esteemed journal would do the same, so include data in the first draft of your manuscript. The internal review is helpful to determine sufficient data to answer the research question.

Most importantly, provide data relevant to the research question. Observations beyond the primary research question can be included in the manuscript, if they strengthen your case. Remember to stay in focus. If you get lost from the aim of the study, so will be reviewers. Prestigious journals have a strict word limit for papers they accept. You need all this space to deliver the key message, so do not mess around but concentrate on the essential. Packing manuscript with data is better than splitting the paper into separate small ones.

Mention a statistical test that generated specific ‘p’ values or coefficients. Show absolute numbers as well as percentages so that reviewers can judge the significance of your observations. Remember that statistical difference does not necessarily translate into clinical significance.

Make your point with data, not arguments.

This section should start with: ‘Our study showed ...’ to lucidly summarize your study findings. Discussion is often the weakest part of the manuscript. Do not repeat the introduction. Do not present any new data that were not shown in the results section and avoid repeating data presentation. There is no reason to underline how terrific your results are – let them speak for themselves.

The second paragraph may describe the novelty of your findings or if they parallel previous research. Remember, only the beginners try to refer to all published papers in the field. No esteemed journal can afford the space needed for this. A skillful selection of the most pertinent references demonstrates a command of the relevant literature. Confirmatory research makes passing the review process more difficult. Arbitrarily, the ratio of abstracts to original papers in curriculum vitae should be less than 3 to 1. If there are too many abstracts, you either have writer’s cramp or the quality of your research is insufficient for publication.

The third paragraph may describe how your study contradicts previous research or established dogmas. If there was disagreement about study interpretation by co-authors, mention different conclusions drawn from your results or other studies [ 9, 10 ]. Avoid general statements that are not founded in data. Do not provide your opinion how to solve a problem that was not directly evaluated in your study. Do not write a review of all possible mechanisms that you have not accounted for in your study. You can write a short but to-the-point Discussion.

The fourth paragraph should describe study limitations. If you do not discuss study weaknesses, the reviewers will. Study limitations may be contrasted with study strengths. This part may also mention unresolved questions and direction of future research.

The concluding paragraph can summarize the potential significance of your findings and what changes to research or clinical practice your data may support. This is a critical part since it is easy to overestimate the significance of your research. Avoid broad claims and strong statements. Remember that even pioneer break-through studies require independent confirmation. Publication in a peer-reviewed journal means completion of your project and dissemination of research results [ 11, 12 ].

Clinicians need to develop skills in scientific writing. If you make a significant observation, a proper and fast scientific communication is required [ 12 ]. Improving your scientific writing is a life-long process. If and when your papers are rejected, remember that most manuscripts face the same fate. Avoid choosing an inappropriate journal for your manuscript submission. Common reasons for rejection include inappropriate or incomplete statistics; over-interpretation of results; inappropriate or sub-optimal instrumentation; a sample too small or biased; difficult-to-follow writing; insufficient problem statement; inaccuracy or inconsistency of the data reported; incomplete, inaccurate, or outdated review of the literature; insufficient data presented, and defective tables or figures [ 13, 14, 15 ]. When reading criticism, learn from your mistakes or the advice given to you. While wrestling with reviewers, you will become a better scientific writer but also a better, more critical scientist. In the long run this will make a major difference to your academic career, and probably will also improve your patient care. Most likely, your way of writing will become more evidence based.

An anonymous and probably frustrated academician once said: ‘Publish or perish!’. This brutally honest statement should motivate you to learn yet another set of useful skills. Good luck!

The author is not a native English speaker. I am indebted to John Norris, MD, FRCP, for – among many things during fellowship training – his patience with my ‘a’s and ‘the’s, and the first lessons in study design, analysis, and presentation. The infamous ‘Norris Rules’ that he taught his fellows are partly reflected in this paper.

Email alerts

Citing articles via, related articles.

• Online ISSN 1421-9786
• Print ISSN 1015-9770

INFORMATION

• Contact & Support
• Information & Downloads
• Rights & Permissions
• Terms & Conditions
• Catalogue & Pricing
• Policies & Information
• People & Organization
• Stay Up-to-Date
• Regional Offices
• Community Voice

SERVICES FOR

• Researchers
• Healthcare Professionals
• Patients & Supporters
• Health Sciences Industry
• Medical Societies
• Agents & Booksellers

Karger International

• S. Karger AG
• P.O Box, CH-4009 Basel (Switzerland)
• Allschwilerstrasse 10, CH-4055 Basel
• Tel: +41 61 306 11 11
• Fax: +41 61 306 12 34
• Contact: Front Office
• Experience Blog
• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Use

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

How to Write and Publish a Research Paper for a Peer-Reviewed Journal

Clara busse.

1 Department of Maternal and Child Health, University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health, 135 Dauer Dr, 27599 Chapel Hill, NC USA

Ella August

2 Department of Epidemiology, University of Michigan School of Public Health, 1415 Washington Heights, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2029 USA

Associated Data

Communicating research findings is an essential step in the research process. Often, peer-reviewed journals are the forum for such communication, yet many researchers are never taught how to write a publishable scientific paper. In this article, we explain the basic structure of a scientific paper and describe the information that should be included in each section. We also identify common pitfalls for each section and recommend strategies to avoid them. Further, we give advice about target journal selection and authorship. In the online resource 1 , we provide an example of a high-quality scientific paper, with annotations identifying the elements we describe in this article.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s13187-020-01751-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Introduction

Writing a scientific paper is an important component of the research process, yet researchers often receive little formal training in scientific writing. This is especially true in low-resource settings. In this article, we explain why choosing a target journal is important, give advice about authorship, provide a basic structure for writing each section of a scientific paper, and describe common pitfalls and recommendations for each section. In the online resource 1 , we also include an annotated journal article that identifies the key elements and writing approaches that we detail here. Before you begin your research, make sure you have ethical clearance from all relevant ethical review boards.

Select a Target Journal Early in the Writing Process

We recommend that you select a “target journal” early in the writing process; a “target journal” is the journal to which you plan to submit your paper. Each journal has a set of core readers and you should tailor your writing to this readership. For example, if you plan to submit a manuscript about vaping during pregnancy to a pregnancy-focused journal, you will need to explain what vaping is because readers of this journal may not have a background in this topic. However, if you were to submit that same article to a tobacco journal, you would not need to provide as much background information about vaping.

Information about a journal’s core readership can be found on its website, usually in a section called “About this journal” or something similar. For example, the Journal of Cancer Education presents such information on the “Aims and Scope” page of its website, which can be found here: https://www.springer.com/journal/13187/aims-and-scope .

Peer reviewer guidelines from your target journal are an additional resource that can help you tailor your writing to the journal and provide additional advice about crafting an effective article [ 1 ]. These are not always available, but it is worth a quick web search to find out.

Identify Author Roles Early in the Process

Early in the writing process, identify authors, determine the order of authors, and discuss the responsibilities of each author. Standard author responsibilities have been identified by The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) [ 2 ]. To set clear expectations about each team member’s responsibilities and prevent errors in communication, we also suggest outlining more detailed roles, such as who will draft each section of the manuscript, write the abstract, submit the paper electronically, serve as corresponding author, and write the cover letter. It is best to formalize this agreement in writing after discussing it, circulating the document to the author team for approval. We suggest creating a title page on which all authors are listed in the agreed-upon order. It may be necessary to adjust authorship roles and order during the development of the paper. If a new author order is agreed upon, be sure to update the title page in the manuscript draft.

In the case where multiple papers will result from a single study, authors should discuss who will author each paper. Additionally, authors should agree on a deadline for each paper and the lead author should take responsibility for producing an initial draft by this deadline.

Structure of the Introduction Section

The introduction section should be approximately three to five paragraphs in length. Look at examples from your target journal to decide the appropriate length. This section should include the elements shown in Fig.  1 . Begin with a general context, narrowing to the specific focus of the paper. Include five main elements: why your research is important, what is already known about the topic, the “gap” or what is not yet known about the topic, why it is important to learn the new information that your research adds, and the specific research aim(s) that your paper addresses. Your research aim should address the gap you identified. Be sure to add enough background information to enable readers to understand your study. Table ​ Table1 1 provides common introduction section pitfalls and recommendations for addressing them.

The main elements of the introduction section of an original research article. Often, the elements overlap

Common introduction section pitfalls and recommendations

Methods Section

The purpose of the methods section is twofold: to explain how the study was done in enough detail to enable its replication and to provide enough contextual detail to enable readers to understand and interpret the results. In general, the essential elements of a methods section are the following: a description of the setting and participants, the study design and timing, the recruitment and sampling, the data collection process, the dataset, the dependent and independent variables, the covariates, the analytic approach for each research objective, and the ethical approval. The hallmark of an exemplary methods section is the justification of why each method was used. Table ​ Table2 2 provides common methods section pitfalls and recommendations for addressing them.

Common methods section pitfalls and recommendations

Results Section

The focus of the results section should be associations, or lack thereof, rather than statistical tests. Two considerations should guide your writing here. First, the results should present answers to each part of the research aim. Second, return to the methods section to ensure that the analysis and variables for each result have been explained.

Begin the results section by describing the number of participants in the final sample and details such as the number who were approached to participate, the proportion who were eligible and who enrolled, and the number of participants who dropped out. The next part of the results should describe the participant characteristics. After that, you may organize your results by the aim or by putting the most exciting results first. Do not forget to report your non-significant associations. These are still findings.

Tables and figures capture the reader’s attention and efficiently communicate your main findings [ 3 ]. Each table and figure should have a clear message and should complement, rather than repeat, the text. Tables and figures should communicate all salient details necessary for a reader to understand the findings without consulting the text. Include information on comparisons and tests, as well as information about the sample and timing of the study in the title, legend, or in a footnote. Note that figures are often more visually interesting than tables, so if it is feasible to make a figure, make a figure. To avoid confusing the reader, either avoid abbreviations in tables and figures, or define them in a footnote. Note that there should not be citations in the results section and you should not interpret results here. Table ​ Table3 3 provides common results section pitfalls and recommendations for addressing them.

Common results section pitfalls and recommendations

Discussion Section

Opposite the introduction section, the discussion should take the form of a right-side-up triangle beginning with interpretation of your results and moving to general implications (Fig.  2 ). This section typically begins with a restatement of the main findings, which can usually be accomplished with a few carefully-crafted sentences.

Major elements of the discussion section of an original research article. Often, the elements overlap

Next, interpret the meaning or explain the significance of your results, lifting the reader’s gaze from the study’s specific findings to more general applications. Then, compare these study findings with other research. Are these findings in agreement or disagreement with those from other studies? Does this study impart additional nuance to well-accepted theories? Situate your findings within the broader context of scientific literature, then explain the pathways or mechanisms that might give rise to, or explain, the results.

Journals vary in their approach to strengths and limitations sections: some are embedded paragraphs within the discussion section, while some mandate separate section headings. Keep in mind that every study has strengths and limitations. Candidly reporting yours helps readers to correctly interpret your research findings.

The next element of the discussion is a summary of the potential impacts and applications of the research. Should these results be used to optimally design an intervention? Does the work have implications for clinical protocols or public policy? These considerations will help the reader to further grasp the possible impacts of the presented work.

Finally, the discussion should conclude with specific suggestions for future work. Here, you have an opportunity to illuminate specific gaps in the literature that compel further study. Avoid the phrase “future research is necessary” because the recommendation is too general to be helpful to readers. Instead, provide substantive and specific recommendations for future studies. Table ​ Table4 4 provides common discussion section pitfalls and recommendations for addressing them.

Common discussion section pitfalls and recommendations

Follow the Journal’s Author Guidelines

After you select a target journal, identify the journal’s author guidelines to guide the formatting of your manuscript and references. Author guidelines will often (but not always) include instructions for titles, cover letters, and other components of a manuscript submission. Read the guidelines carefully. If you do not follow the guidelines, your article will be sent back to you.

Finally, do not submit your paper to more than one journal at a time. Even if this is not explicitly stated in the author guidelines of your target journal, it is considered inappropriate and unprofessional.

Your title should invite readers to continue reading beyond the first page [ 4 , 5 ]. It should be informative and interesting. Consider describing the independent and dependent variables, the population and setting, the study design, the timing, and even the main result in your title. Because the focus of the paper can change as you write and revise, we recommend you wait until you have finished writing your paper before composing the title.

Be sure that the title is useful for potential readers searching for your topic. The keywords you select should complement those in your title to maximize the likelihood that a researcher will find your paper through a database search. Avoid using abbreviations in your title unless they are very well known, such as SNP, because it is more likely that someone will use a complete word rather than an abbreviation as a search term to help readers find your paper.

After you have written a complete draft, use the checklist (Fig. ​ (Fig.3) 3 ) below to guide your revisions and editing. Additional resources are available on writing the abstract and citing references [ 5 ]. When you feel that your work is ready, ask a trusted colleague or two to read the work and provide informal feedback. The box below provides a checklist that summarizes the key points offered in this article.

Checklist for manuscript quality

(PDF 362 kb)

Acknowledgments

Ella August is grateful to the Sustainable Sciences Institute for mentoring her in training researchers on writing and publishing their research.

Code Availability

Not applicable.

Data Availability

Compliance with ethical standards.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

• How to write a research paper

Last updated

11 January 2024

Reviewed by

With proper planning, knowledge, and framework, completing a research paper can be a fulfilling and exciting experience. 

Though it might initially sound slightly intimidating, this guide will help you embrace the challenge. 

By documenting your findings, you can inspire others and make a difference in your field. Here's how you can make your research paper unique and comprehensive.

• What is a research paper?

Research papers allow you to demonstrate your knowledge and understanding of a particular topic. These papers are usually lengthier and more detailed than typical essays, requiring deeper insight into the chosen topic.

To write a research paper, you must first choose a topic that interests you and is relevant to the field of study. Once you’ve selected your topic, gathering as many relevant resources as possible, including books, scholarly articles, credible websites, and other academic materials, is essential. You must then read and analyze these sources, summarizing their key points and identifying gaps in the current research.

You can formulate your ideas and opinions once you thoroughly understand the existing research. To get there might involve conducting original research, gathering data, or analyzing existing data sets. It could also involve presenting an original argument or interpretation of the existing research.

Writing a successful research paper involves presenting your findings clearly and engagingly, which might involve using charts, graphs, or other visual aids to present your data and using concise language to explain your findings. You must also ensure your paper adheres to relevant academic formatting guidelines, including proper citations and references.

Overall, writing a research paper requires a significant amount of time, effort, and attention to detail. However, it is also an enriching experience that allows you to delve deeply into a subject that interests you and contribute to the existing body of knowledge in your chosen field.

• How long should a research paper be?

Research papers are deep dives into a topic. Therefore, they tend to be longer pieces of work than essays or opinion pieces. 

However, a suitable length depends on the complexity of the topic and your level of expertise. For instance, are you a first-year college student or an experienced professional? 

Also, remember that the best research papers provide valuable information for the benefit of others. Therefore, the quality of information matters most, not necessarily the length. Being concise is valuable.

Following these best practice steps will help keep your process simple and productive:

1. Gaining a deep understanding of any expectations

Before diving into your intended topic or beginning the research phase, take some time to orient yourself. Suppose there’s a specific topic assigned to you. In that case, it’s essential to deeply understand the question and organize your planning and approach in response. Pay attention to the key requirements and ensure you align your writing accordingly. 

This preparation step entails

Deeply understanding the task or assignment

Being clear about the expected format and length

Familiarizing yourself with the citation and referencing requirements 

Understanding any defined limits for your research contribution

Where applicable, speaking to your professor or research supervisor for further clarification

2. Choose your research topic

Select a research topic that aligns with both your interests and available resources. Ideally, focus on a field where you possess significant experience and analytical skills. In crafting your research paper, it's crucial to go beyond summarizing existing data and contribute fresh insights to the chosen area.

Consider narrowing your focus to a specific aspect of the topic. For example, if exploring the link between technology and mental health, delve into how social media use during the pandemic impacts the well-being of college students. Conducting interviews and surveys with students could provide firsthand data and unique perspectives, adding substantial value to the existing knowledge.

When finalizing your topic, adhere to legal and ethical norms in the relevant area (this ensures the integrity of your research, protects participants' rights, upholds intellectual property standards, and ensures transparency and accountability). Following these principles not only maintains the credibility of your work but also builds trust within your academic or professional community.

For instance, in writing about medical research, consider legal and ethical norms , including patient confidentiality laws and informed consent requirements. Similarly, if analyzing user data on social media platforms, be mindful of data privacy regulations, ensuring compliance with laws governing personal information collection and use. Aligning with legal and ethical standards not only avoids potential issues but also underscores the responsible conduct of your research.

3. Gather preliminary research

Once you’ve landed on your topic, it’s time to explore it further. You’ll want to discover more about available resources and existing research relevant to your assignment at this stage. 

This exploratory phase is vital as you may discover issues with your original idea or realize you have insufficient resources to explore the topic effectively. This key bit of groundwork allows you to redirect your research topic in a different, more feasible, or more relevant direction if necessary. 

Spending ample time at this stage ensures you gather everything you need, learn as much as you can about the topic, and discover gaps where the topic has yet to be sufficiently covered, offering an opportunity to research it further. 

4. Define your research question

To produce a well-structured and focused paper, it is imperative to formulate a clear and precise research question that will guide your work. Your research question must be informed by the existing literature and tailored to the scope and objectives of your project. By refining your focus, you can produce a thoughtful and engaging paper that effectively communicates your ideas to your readers.

5. Write a thesis statement

A thesis statement is a one-to-two-sentence summary of your research paper's main argument or direction. It serves as an overall guide to summarize the overall intent of the research paper for you and anyone wanting to know more about the research.

A strong thesis statement is:

Concise and clear: Explain your case in simple sentences (avoid covering multiple ideas). It might help to think of this section as an elevator pitch.

Specific: Ensure that there is no ambiguity in your statement and that your summary covers the points argued in the paper.

Debatable: A thesis statement puts forward a specific argument––it is not merely a statement but a debatable point that can be analyzed and discussed.

Here are three thesis statement examples from different disciplines:

Psychology thesis example: "We're studying adults aged 25-40 to see if taking short breaks for mindfulness can help with stress. Our goal is to find practical ways to manage anxiety better."

Environmental science thesis example: "This research paper looks into how having more city parks might make the air cleaner and keep people healthier. I want to find out if more green spaces means breathing fewer carcinogens in big cities."

UX research thesis example: "This study focuses on improving mobile banking for older adults using ethnographic research, eye-tracking analysis, and interactive prototyping. We investigate the usefulness of eye-tracking analysis with older individuals, aiming to spark debate and offer fresh perspectives on UX design and digital inclusivity for the aging population."

6. Conduct in-depth research

A research paper doesn’t just include research that you’ve uncovered from other papers and studies but your fresh insights, too. You will seek to become an expert on your topic––understanding the nuances in the current leading theories. You will analyze existing research and add your thinking and discoveries.  It's crucial to conduct well-designed research that is rigorous, robust, and based on reliable sources. Suppose a research paper lacks evidence or is biased. In that case, it won't benefit the academic community or the general public. Therefore, examining the topic thoroughly and furthering its understanding through high-quality research is essential. That usually means conducting new research. Depending on the area under investigation, you may conduct surveys, interviews, diary studies , or observational research to uncover new insights or bolster current claims.

7. Determine supporting evidence

Not every piece of research you’ve discovered will be relevant to your research paper. It’s important to categorize the most meaningful evidence to include alongside your discoveries. It's important to include evidence that doesn't support your claims to avoid exclusion bias and ensure a fair research paper.

8. Write a research paper outline

Before diving in and writing the whole paper, start with an outline. It will help you to see if more research is needed, and it will provide a framework by which to write a more compelling paper. Your supervisor may even request an outline to approve before beginning to write the first draft of the full paper. An outline will include your topic, thesis statement, key headings, short summaries of the research, and your arguments.

9. Write your first draft

Once you feel confident about your outline and sources, it’s time to write your first draft. While penning a long piece of content can be intimidating, if you’ve laid the groundwork, you will have a structure to help you move steadily through each section. To keep up motivation and inspiration, it’s often best to keep the pace quick. Stopping for long periods can interrupt your flow and make jumping back in harder than writing when things are fresh in your mind.

10. Cite your sources correctly

It's always a good practice to give credit where it's due, and the same goes for citing any works that have influenced your paper. Building your arguments on credible references adds value and authenticity to your research. In the formatting guidelines section, you’ll find an overview of different citation styles (MLA, CMOS, or APA), which will help you meet any publishing or academic requirements and strengthen your paper's credibility. It is essential to follow the guidelines provided by your school or the publication you are submitting to ensure the accuracy and relevance of your citations.

11. Ensure your work is original

It is crucial to ensure the originality of your paper, as plagiarism can lead to serious consequences. To avoid plagiarism, you should use proper paraphrasing and quoting techniques. Paraphrasing is rewriting a text in your own words while maintaining the original meaning. Quoting involves directly citing the source. Giving credit to the original author or source is essential whenever you borrow their ideas or words. You can also use plagiarism detection tools such as Scribbr or Grammarly to check the originality of your paper. These tools compare your draft writing to a vast database of online sources. If you find any accidental plagiarism, you should correct it immediately by rephrasing or citing the source.

12. Revise, edit, and proofread

One of the essential qualities of excellent writers is their ability to understand the importance of editing and proofreading. Even though it's tempting to call it a day once you've finished your writing, editing your work can significantly improve its quality. It's natural to overlook the weaker areas when you've just finished writing a paper. Therefore, it's best to take a break of a day or two, or even up to a week, to refresh your mind. This way, you can return to your work with a new perspective. After some breathing room, you can spot any inconsistencies, spelling and grammar errors, typos, or missing citations and correct them. 

• The best research paper format 

The format of your research paper should align with the requirements set forth by your college, school, or target publication. 

There is no one “best” format, per se. Depending on the stated requirements, you may need to include the following elements:

Title page: The title page of a research paper typically includes the title, author's name, and institutional affiliation and may include additional information such as a course name or instructor's name. 

Table of contents: Include a table of contents to make it easy for readers to find specific sections of your paper.

Abstract: The abstract is a summary of the purpose of the paper.

Methods : In this section, describe the research methods used. This may include collecting data , conducting interviews, or doing field research .

Results: Summarize the conclusions you drew from your research in this section.

Discussion: In this section, discuss the implications of your research . Be sure to mention any significant limitations to your approach and suggest areas for further research.

Tables, charts, and illustrations: Use tables, charts, and illustrations to help convey your research findings and make them easier to understand.

Works cited or reference page: Include a works cited or reference page to give credit to the sources that you used to conduct your research.

Bibliography: Provide a list of all the sources you consulted while conducting your research.

Dedication and acknowledgments : Optionally, you may include a dedication and acknowledgments section to thank individuals who helped you with your research.

• General style and formatting guidelines

Formatting your research paper means you can submit it to your college, journal, or other publications in compliance with their criteria.

Research papers tend to follow the American Psychological Association (APA), Modern Language Association (MLA), or Chicago Manual of Style (CMOS) guidelines.

Here’s how each style guide is typically used:

Chicago Manual of Style (CMOS):

CMOS is a versatile style guide used for various types of writing. It's known for its flexibility and use in the humanities. CMOS provides guidelines for citations, formatting, and overall writing style. It allows for both footnotes and in-text citations, giving writers options based on their preferences or publication requirements.

American Psychological Association (APA):

APA is common in the social sciences. It’s hailed for its clarity and emphasis on precision. It has specific rules for citing sources, creating references, and formatting papers. APA style uses in-text citations with an accompanying reference list. It's designed to convey information efficiently and is widely used in academic and scientific writing.

Modern Language Association (MLA):

MLA is widely used in the humanities, especially literature and language studies. It emphasizes the author-page format for in-text citations and provides guidelines for creating a "Works Cited" page. MLA is known for its focus on the author's name and the literary works cited. It’s frequently used in disciplines that prioritize literary analysis and critical thinking.

To confirm you're using the latest style guide, check the official website or publisher's site for updates, consult academic resources, and verify the guide's publication date. Online platforms and educational resources may also provide summaries and alerts about any revisions or additions to the style guide.

Citing sources

When working on your research paper, it's important to cite the sources you used properly. Your citation style will guide you through this process. Generally, there are three parts to citing sources in your research paper: 

First, provide a brief citation in the body of your essay. This is also known as a parenthetical or in-text citation. 

Second, include a full citation in the Reference list at the end of your paper. Different types of citations include in-text citations, footnotes, and reference lists. 

In-text citations include the author's surname and the date of the citation. 

Footnotes appear at the bottom of each page of your research paper. They may also be summarized within a reference list at the end of the paper. 

A reference list includes all of the research used within the paper at the end of the document. It should include the author, date, paper title, and publisher listed in the order that aligns with your citation style.

10 research paper writing tips:

Following some best practices is essential to writing a research paper that contributes to your field of study and creates a positive impact.

These tactics will help you structure your argument effectively and ensure your work benefits others:

Clear and precise language:  Ensure your language is unambiguous. Use academic language appropriately, but keep it simple. Also, provide clear takeaways for your audience.

Effective idea separation:  Organize the vast amount of information and sources in your paper with paragraphs and titles. Create easily digestible sections for your readers to navigate through.

Compelling intro:  Craft an engaging introduction that captures your reader's interest. Hook your audience and motivate them to continue reading.

Thorough revision and editing:  Take the time to review and edit your paper comprehensively. Use tools like Grammarly to detect and correct small, overlooked errors.

Thesis precision:  Develop a clear and concise thesis statement that guides your paper. Ensure that your thesis aligns with your research's overall purpose and contribution.

Logical flow of ideas:  Maintain a logical progression throughout the paper. Use transitions effectively to connect different sections and maintain coherence.

Critical evaluation of sources:  Evaluate and critically assess the relevance and reliability of your sources. Ensure that your research is based on credible and up-to-date information.

Thematic consistency:  Maintain a consistent theme throughout the paper. Ensure that all sections contribute cohesively to the overall argument.

Relevant supporting evidence:  Provide concise and relevant evidence to support your arguments. Avoid unnecessary details that may distract from the main points.

Embrace counterarguments:  Acknowledge and address opposing views to strengthen your position. Show that you have considered alternative arguments in your field.

7 research tips 

If you want your paper to not only be well-written but also contribute to the progress of human knowledge, consider these tips to take your paper to the next level:

Selecting the appropriate topic: The topic you select should align with your area of expertise, comply with the requirements of your project, and have sufficient resources for a comprehensive investigation.

Use academic databases: Academic databases such as PubMed, Google Scholar, and JSTOR offer a wealth of research papers that can help you discover everything you need to know about your chosen topic.

Critically evaluate sources: It is important not to accept research findings at face value. Instead, it is crucial to critically analyze the information to avoid jumping to conclusions or overlooking important details. A well-written research paper requires a critical analysis with thorough reasoning to support claims.

Diversify your sources: Expand your research horizons by exploring a variety of sources beyond the standard databases. Utilize books, conference proceedings, and interviews to gather diverse perspectives and enrich your understanding of the topic.

Take detailed notes: Detailed note-taking is crucial during research and can help you form the outline and body of your paper.

Stay up on trends: Keep abreast of the latest developments in your field by regularly checking for recent publications. Subscribe to newsletters, follow relevant journals, and attend conferences to stay informed about emerging trends and advancements. 

Engage in peer review: Seek feedback from peers or mentors to ensure the rigor and validity of your research . Peer review helps identify potential weaknesses in your methodology and strengthens the overall credibility of your findings.

• The real-world impact of research papers

Writing a research paper is more than an academic or business exercise. The experience provides an opportunity to explore a subject in-depth, broaden one's understanding, and arrive at meaningful conclusions. With careful planning, dedication, and hard work, writing a research paper can be a fulfilling and enriching experience contributing to advancing knowledge.

How do I publish my research paper? 

Many academics wish to publish their research papers. While challenging, your paper might get traction if it covers new and well-written information. To publish your research paper, find a target publication, thoroughly read their guidelines, format your paper accordingly, and send it to them per their instructions. You may need to include a cover letter, too. After submission, your paper may be peer-reviewed by experts to assess its legitimacy, quality, originality, and methodology. Following review, you will be informed by the publication whether they have accepted or rejected your paper. 

What is a good opening sentence for a research paper? 

Beginning your research paper with a compelling introduction can ensure readers are interested in going further. A relevant quote, a compelling statistic, or a bold argument can start the paper and hook your reader. Remember, though, that the most important aspect of a research paper is the quality of the information––not necessarily your ability to storytell, so ensure anything you write aligns with your goals.

Research paper vs. a research proposal—what’s the difference?

While some may confuse research papers and proposals, they are different documents. 

A research proposal comes before a research paper. It is a detailed document that outlines an intended area of exploration. It includes the research topic, methodology, timeline, sources, and potential conclusions. Research proposals are often required when seeking approval to conduct research. 

A research paper is a summary of research findings. A research paper follows a structured format to present those findings and construct an argument or conclusion.

Should you be using a customer insights hub?

Do you want to discover previous research faster?

Do you share your research findings with others?

Do you analyze research data?

Start for free today, add your research, and get to key insights faster

Editor’s picks

Last updated: 18 April 2023

Last updated: 27 February 2023

Last updated: 5 February 2023

Last updated: 16 April 2023

Last updated: 16 August 2024

Last updated: 9 March 2023

Last updated: 30 April 2024

Last updated: 12 December 2023

Last updated: 11 March 2024

Last updated: 4 July 2024

Last updated: 6 March 2024

Last updated: 5 March 2024

Last updated: 13 May 2024

Latest articles

Related topics, .css-je19u9{-webkit-align-items:flex-end;-webkit-box-align:flex-end;-ms-flex-align:flex-end;align-items:flex-end;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-direction:row;-ms-flex-direction:row;flex-direction:row;-webkit-box-flex-wrap:wrap;-webkit-flex-wrap:wrap;-ms-flex-wrap:wrap;flex-wrap:wrap;-webkit-box-pack:center;-ms-flex-pack:center;-webkit-justify-content:center;justify-content:center;row-gap:0;text-align:center;max-width:671px;}@media (max-width: 1079px){.css-je19u9{max-width:400px;}.css-je19u9>span{white-space:pre;}}@media (max-width: 799px){.css-je19u9{max-width:400px;}.css-je19u9>span{white-space:pre;}} decide what to .css-1kiodld{max-height:56px;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;}@media (max-width: 1079px){.css-1kiodld{display:none;}} build next, decide what to build next.

• 10 research paper

Log in or sign up

Get started for free

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

How to write a research paper

Affiliation.

• 1 Stroke Treatment Team, Houston Medical School, University of Texas, Houston, TX 77030, USA. [email protected]
• PMID: 15218279
• DOI: 10.1159/000079266

Background: Busy strokologists often find little time for scientific writing. They sometimes develop a mental condition equivalent to that known by neurologists as writer's cramp. It may result in permanent damage to academic career. This paper provides advice how to prevent or treat this condition.

Methods: Prepare your manuscript following the IMRaD principle (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion), with every part supporting the key message. When writing, be concise. Clearly state your methods here, while data belong to Results. Successful submissions combine quality new data or new thinking with lucid presentation.

Results: Provide data that answer the research question. Describe here most important numeric data and statistics, keeping in mind that the shorter you can present them, the better. The scientific community screens abstracts to decide which full text papers to read. Make your point with data, not arguments.

Conclusions: Conclusions have to be based on the present study findings. The time of lengthy and unfounded speculations is over. A simple message in a clearly written manuscript will get noticed and may advance our understanding of stroke.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

• Writing good abstracts. Alexandrov AV, Hennerici MG. Alexandrov AV, et al. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2007;23(4):256-9. doi: 10.1159/000098324. Epub 2006 Dec 29. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2007. PMID: 17199082
• Writing biomedical manuscripts part I: fundamentals and general rules. Ohwovoriole AE. Ohwovoriole AE. West Afr J Med. 2011 May-Jun;30(3):151-7. West Afr J Med. 2011. PMID: 22120477 Review.
• Anatomy of a research paper. Branson RD. Branson RD. Respir Care. 2004 Oct;49(10):1222-8. Respir Care. 2004. PMID: 15447807
• Ophthalmology and vision science research: Part 3: avoiding writer's block--understanding the ABCs of a good research paper. McGhee CN, Gilhotra AK. McGhee CN, et al. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005 Dec;31(12):2413-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2005.10.022. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005. PMID: 16473239
• Writing to get published. Wink DM. Wink DM. Nephrol Nurs J. 2002 Oct;29(5):461-7. Nephrol Nurs J. 2002. PMID: 12434452 Review.
• Writing a strong scientific paper in medicine and the biomedical sciences: a checklist and recommendations for early career researchers. Behzadi P, Gajdács M. Behzadi P, et al. Biol Futur. 2021 Dec;72(4):395-407. doi: 10.1007/s42977-021-00095-z. Epub 2021 Jul 28. Biol Futur. 2021. PMID: 34554491
• The Principles of Biomedical Scientific Writing: Discussion. Ghasemi A, Bahadoran Z, Mirmiran P, Hosseinpanah F, Shiva N, Zadeh-Vakili A. Ghasemi A, et al. Int J Endocrinol Metab. 2019 Jul 29;17(3):e95415. doi: 10.5812/ijem.95415. eCollection 2019 Jul. Int J Endocrinol Metab. 2019. PMID: 31497043 Free PMC article. Review.
• The passive voice and comprehensibility of biomedical texts: An experimental study with 2 cohorts of chiropractic students. Millar N, Budgell BS. Millar N, et al. J Chiropr Educ. 2019 Mar;33(1):16-20. doi: 10.7899/JCE-17-22. Epub 2018 Aug 2. J Chiropr Educ. 2019. PMID: 30070902 Free PMC article.
• The Art and Craft of Making a Draft: Writing a Good-Quality Scientific Paper! Khadilkar SS. Khadilkar SS. J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2018 Jun;68(3):151-154. doi: 10.1007/s13224-018-1133-5. Epub 2018 May 21. J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2018. PMID: 29895992 Free PMC article.
• How to write a materials and methods section of a scientific article? Erdemir F. Erdemir F. Turk J Urol. 2013 Sep;39(Suppl 1):10-5. doi: 10.5152/tud.2013.047. Turk J Urol. 2013. PMID: 26328129 Free PMC article.

Publication types

• Search in MeSH

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

• Ovid Technologies, Inc.
• S. Karger AG, Basel, Switzerland

• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

• Services Paper editing services Paper proofreading Business papers Philosophy papers Write my paper Term papers for sale Term paper help Academic term papers Buy research papers College writing services Paper writing help Student papers Original term papers Research paper help Nursing papers for sale Psychology papers Economics papers Medical papers Blog

Top 100 Disease Research Topics For Paper Writing

Students have many disease research topics to consider when writing research papers and essays. A disease occurs when the body undergoes some changes. Science philosophy has pointed at pathogens and the causes of illness. Today, medicine focus on biochemical factors, nutrition, immunology levels, and environmental toxins as the causes of diseases. Research papers on disease topics can focus on specific illnesses independently or in groups. You can also write about infectious diseases like COVID-19 and HIV or non-communicable diseases. Non-communicable diseases are also known as chronic illnesses. These are diseases that you can’t get from a sick person. They include heart disease, cancer, stroke, and lung disease. These diseases account for up to 70% of global deaths. Nevertheless, whether you opt to write about advanced topics in Lyme disease or something simple like flu, research will be paramount. You  can also buy research papers cheap, if you don’t have time for it. So, d on’t put your grade at risk and get research paper online help .  

Why Choose Our Disease Research Topics?

Educators want you to convince them that you have taken the time to think about your topic and research it extensively. What’s more, your research should make a meaningful contribution to your study field. Therefore, select a good topic and research it extensively before you start writing. Analyze your information to determine what will make it to your research paper. Here is a list of 100 disease research paper topics worth considering for your paper or essay.

Top Disease Research Topics

Maybe you want to research and write a research paper on a topic that anybody will find interesting to read. In that case, consider ideas in this list of disease research topics.

• How NSAIDS lead to peptic ulcers
• What are pandemic diseases?
• What is the role of pandemic diseases in the mankind history?
• What are the symptoms of acute lung disease?
• Explain how Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder affects children
• Discuss the AIDS pandemic in third world countries
• Describe the main causes of AIDS
• Explain how AIDS affects children
• Discuss the treatment of AIDS
• Is alcohol addiction a disease?
• Discuss the Alzheimer’s disease scope and how it affects the elderly persons’ brain
• How can you help dementia or Alzheimer’s disease patients and caregivers?
• What are the symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease?
• What is autoimmune disease?
• Explain how autoimmune thyroiditis begins
• Examine acute protective membrane inflammation in bacterial meningitis
• Compare pathology of AIDS and black death
• Discuss the effects of cancer in today’s society
• Autism and its causes
• Different types of cancer and their prevalence

These are topics disease experts will recommend researching and writing about. And because students can write about these topics without getting complex, anybody will find them interesting. If you’re searching for research topics on Alzheimer’s disease, this list also has some ideas for you to consider.

Infectious Disease Topics for Research Papers

Are you interested in infectious disease research topics? If yes, you will find this list interesting. This category comprises hot topics in infectious disease fields. Consider some of these ideas for your research paper.

• The virology, epidemiology, and prevention of COVID-19
• The diagnosis of COVID-19
• Prevention vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 infection
• Questions people ask about COVID-19
• Clinical features of COVID-19
• COVID-19 management in a hospital setting
• Infection control for COVID-19 in homes and healthcare settings
• Skin abscess and cellulitis in adults
• Clinical manifestation, diagnosis, and epidemiology of yellow fever
• Transmission and epidemiology of measles
• Role of untreated inflammation of genital tract in HIV transmission
• Racial inequities of COVID-19 and HIV in black communities
• Community-acquired pneumonia overview in adults
• The use of procalcitonin in the infections of lower respiratory tract
• Herpes simplex virus prevention and treatment
• Uncomplicated Neisseria gonorrhea treatment
• Society guidelines for COVID-19
• Why public education is crucial in fighting COVID-19
• Overview of Ebola over the last two decades
• Investigations into the use of monoclonal antibody in treating Ebola

This category also has some of the best infectious disease presentation topics. Nevertheless, learners should prepare to research extensively before writing academic papers on these topics.

Interesting Disease Topics

Maybe you want to research and write a research paper on a topic that most people find interesting. In that case, consider these disease topics for research paper.

• Discuss bulimia as a common eating disorder
• Why are so many young people suffering from anorexia?
• What causes most eating disorders
• How serious are sleep disorders
• Discuss rabies treatment- The Milwaukee protocol
• Is assisted suicide a way to treat terminal diseases?
• What are the effects of brain injuries?
• What are professional diseases?
• Is autism a norm variant or a disease?
• The history of pandemics and epidemics
• The role of antibiotics in treating diseases
• What causes insomnia?
• What are the effects of insomnia?
• How to cope with insomnia
• Can sleeping pills cure insomnia?
• Explain what causes long-term insomnia
• Using traditional medicine to fight insomnia
• How to deal with bulimia and nervosa
• How eating disorders affect self-harm behavior
• How feminism affect anorexic women phenomenon

This is a list of easy disease topics for papers. What’s more, most people will find these research paper disease topics interesting to read about. Nevertheless, students should take time to research their preferred topics to come up with brilliant papers on any of these human disease research paper topics.

Cardiovascular Disease Research Topics

Maybe you’re interested in topic ideas on heart disease. Perhaps, you want to write about an illness of the respiratory system. In that case, consider these heart disease research topics.

• An investigation of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy
• A research of the causes of coronary artery disease
• Antithrombotic therapy in surgical valve and prosthetic heart valve repair
• Intervention choice for severe cases of calcific aortic stenosis
• Prognosis and treatment of heart failure using preserved fraction of injection
• Infective endocarditis management in adults
• Risk assessment for cardiovascular disease for primary prevention
• Prognosis and treatment of acute pericarditis
• Treatment of reflex syncope in adolescents and adults
• Anticoagulant therapy for preventing thromboembolism in atrial fibrillation
• Cardiac manifestations of COVID-19 in adults
• Acute decompensated heart failure treatment
• What is hypertriglyceridemia?
• How to manage elevated low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol in cardiovascular disease
• Management and evaluation of cardiac disease
• Conduction system and arrhythmias disease and COVID-19
• Myocardial infarction in COVID-19
• Can somebody inherit a cardiac disease?
• How effective are treatments for irregular heartbeat?
• How to determine the risk for a sudden cardiac death

This list comprises some of the best special disease topics. That’s because most people reading about these topics might not have heard about them before. Nevertheless, this category also has interesting research topics for disease control that may help individuals that want to avoid or manage some illnesses.

Research Topics for Chronic Disease

You probably know somebody living with a chronic illness. Unlike controversial topics in infectious disease, people don’t talk much about chronic illnesses. And for this reason, some people don’t know about these illnesses. When writing about non-communicable illnesses, you can settle for human genetic disease topics or even research topics for sickle cell disease. Here are some of the topics about non-communicable diseases that you can write about.

• The risk of breast cancer after childbirth
• Postpartum PTSD- Effective preventative measures
• Experiences of females suffering from cardiac disease during pregnancy- A systematic review
• Husbands attendance and knowledge of wives’ postpartum care in rural areas
• Postpartum depression screening by perinatal nurses in hospitals
• Gestational diabetes mellitus screening from the rural perspective
• Maternal mortality- How to help cardiac and pregnant patients
• Sex differences in cardio metabolic disorders and major depression- Effect of immune exposures and prenatal stress
• Determinants and prevalence of anxiety and antepartum depressive symptoms in fathers and expectant mothers- Outcomes from perinatal psychiatric morbidity
• Evaluating the effect of community health workers on non-communicable diseases, tuberculosis, malnutrition, antenatal care, and family planning
• History of women with postpartum affective disorder and the risk of future pregnancies recurrence
• New self-care guide package and its effect on neonatal and maternal results in gestational diabetes
• Depressive symptoms and life events in pregnant women- Moderating the resilience role and social support
• Gestational diabetes and ethnic disparities
• Pregnancy and diabetes- Opportunities and risks
• Cardiovascular disease maternal death reduction- A pragmatic investigation
• Meta-analysis and systematic review of gestational diabetes mellitus diagnosis with a two-step or one-step associations and approaches with negative pregnancy outcomes
• Gestational diabetes mellitus treatment in women- A Cochrane systematic overview
• Research in non-communicable diseases in Africa- A strategic investment
• How to finance the national response to non-communicable diseases

Whether you opt to write about research paper topics in Huntington’s disease or non-communicable liver disease topics, you have to engage in extensive research to come up with a brilliant paper. We have more health research topics for you, so don’t hesitate to check them. Therefore, select an idea you will be comfortable researching and writing about. That way, you will avoid enduring a boring process of investing your topic and writing the paper. If you want to hire someone to help you with your assignment, just c ontact us with a “ do my research paper now ” request and we’ll get your papers done. 

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Terms & Conditions Loyalty Program Privacy Policy Money-Back Policy

Copyright © 2013-2024 MyPaperDone.com

How to write a great research paper

Academic resource.

Simon Peyton Jones

This talk offers seven simple, concrete suggestions for how to improve your research papers. You may also find my talks on how to write a great research proposal  and how to give a great research talk  useful.

• Powerpoint slides of the talk:  PDF   PPT  (you should feel free to repurpose these slides for your own use as long as you acknowledge ownership)
• Another video of the talk (shorter: 34 mins), Cambridge Computer Lab, Spring 2013, with thanks to Neil Dodgson for the editing and production.
• Slides translated into Arabic (Suzan Alkhodair),  Japanese (KADO Masanori), and another Japanese version
• I have also collected a set of links to other useful material about technical writing, on the Other Resources tab

Related links

How to write a great research proposal

How to give a great research talk

Simon Peyton Jones: [email protected]

• Follow on X
• Like on Facebook
• Follow on LinkedIn
• Subscribe on Youtube
• Follow on Instagram
• Subscribe to our RSS feed

Share this page:

• Share on Facebook
• Share on LinkedIn
• Share on Reddit

How to Write a Research Paper Introduction (with Examples)

The research paper introduction section, along with the Title and Abstract, can be considered the face of any research paper. The following article is intended to guide you in organizing and writing the research paper introduction for a quality academic article or dissertation.

The research paper introduction aims to present the topic to the reader. A study will only be accepted for publishing if you can ascertain that the available literature cannot answer your research question. So it is important to ensure that you have read important studies on that particular topic, especially those within the last five to ten years, and that they are properly referenced in this section. 1 What should be included in the research paper introduction is decided by what you want to tell readers about the reason behind the research and how you plan to fill the knowledge gap. The best research paper introduction provides a systemic review of existing work and demonstrates additional work that needs to be done. It needs to be brief, captivating, and well-referenced; a well-drafted research paper introduction will help the researcher win half the battle.

The introduction for a research paper is where you set up your topic and approach for the reader. It has several key goals:

• Present your research topic
• Capture reader interest
• Summarize existing research
• Position your own approach
• Define your specific research problem and problem statement
• Highlight the novelty and contributions of the study
• Give an overview of the paper’s structure

The research paper introduction can vary in size and structure depending on whether your paper presents the results of original empirical research or is a review paper. Some research paper introduction examples are only half a page while others are a few pages long. In many cases, the introduction will be shorter than all of the other sections of your paper; its length depends on the size of your paper as a whole.

• Break through writer’s block. Write your research paper introduction with Paperpal Copilot

Table of Contents

What is the introduction for a research paper, why is the introduction important in a research paper, craft a compelling introduction section with paperpal. try now, 1. introduce the research topic:, 2. determine a research niche:, 3. place your research within the research niche:, craft accurate research paper introductions with paperpal. start writing now, frequently asked questions on research paper introduction, key points to remember.

The introduction in a research paper is placed at the beginning to guide the reader from a broad subject area to the specific topic that your research addresses. They present the following information to the reader

• Scope: The topic covered in the research paper
• Context: Background of your topic
• Importance: Why your research matters in that particular area of research and the industry problem that can be targeted

The research paper introduction conveys a lot of information and can be considered an essential roadmap for the rest of your paper. A good introduction for a research paper is important for the following reasons:

• It stimulates your reader’s interest: A good introduction section can make your readers want to read your paper by capturing their interest. It informs the reader what they are going to learn and helps determine if the topic is of interest to them.
• It helps the reader understand the research background: Without a clear introduction, your readers may feel confused and even struggle when reading your paper. A good research paper introduction will prepare them for the in-depth research to come. It provides you the opportunity to engage with the readers and demonstrate your knowledge and authority on the specific topic.
• It explains why your research paper is worth reading: Your introduction can convey a lot of information to your readers. It introduces the topic, why the topic is important, and how you plan to proceed with your research.
• It helps guide the reader through the rest of the paper: The research paper introduction gives the reader a sense of the nature of the information that will support your arguments and the general organization of the paragraphs that will follow. It offers an overview of what to expect when reading the main body of your paper.

What are the parts of introduction in the research?

A good research paper introduction section should comprise three main elements: 2

• What is known: This sets the stage for your research. It informs the readers of what is known on the subject.
• What is lacking: This is aimed at justifying the reason for carrying out your research. This could involve investigating a new concept or method or building upon previous research.
• What you aim to do: This part briefly states the objectives of your research and its major contributions. Your detailed hypothesis will also form a part of this section.

How to write a research paper introduction?

The first step in writing the research paper introduction is to inform the reader what your topic is and why it’s interesting or important. This is generally accomplished with a strong opening statement. The second step involves establishing the kinds of research that have been done and ending with limitations or gaps in the research that you intend to address. Finally, the research paper introduction clarifies how your own research fits in and what problem it addresses. If your research involved testing hypotheses, these should be stated along with your research question. The hypothesis should be presented in the past tense since it will have been tested by the time you are writing the research paper introduction.

The following key points, with examples, can guide you when writing the research paper introduction section:

• Highlight the importance of the research field or topic
• Describe the background of the topic
• Present an overview of current research on the topic

Example: The inclusion of experiential and competency-based learning has benefitted electronics engineering education. Industry partnerships provide an excellent alternative for students wanting to engage in solving real-world challenges. Industry-academia participation has grown in recent years due to the need for skilled engineers with practical training and specialized expertise. However, from the educational perspective, many activities are needed to incorporate sustainable development goals into the university curricula and consolidate learning innovation in universities.

• Reveal a gap in existing research or oppose an existing assumption
• Formulate the research question

Example: There have been plausible efforts to integrate educational activities in higher education electronics engineering programs. However, very few studies have considered using educational research methods for performance evaluation of competency-based higher engineering education, with a focus on technical and or transversal skills. To remedy the current need for evaluating competencies in STEM fields and providing sustainable development goals in engineering education, in this study, a comparison was drawn between study groups without and with industry partners.

• State the purpose of your study
• Highlight the key characteristics of your study
• Describe important results
• Highlight the novelty of the study.
• Offer a brief overview of the structure of the paper.

Example: The study evaluates the main competency needed in the applied electronics course, which is a fundamental core subject for many electronics engineering undergraduate programs. We compared two groups, without and with an industrial partner, that offered real-world projects to solve during the semester. This comparison can help determine significant differences in both groups in terms of developing subject competency and achieving sustainable development goals.

Write a Research Paper Introduction in Minutes with Paperpal

Paperpal Copilot is a generative AI-powered academic writing assistant. It’s trained on millions of published scholarly articles and over 20 years of STM experience. Paperpal Copilot helps authors write better and faster with:

• Real-time writing suggestions
• In-depth checks for language and grammar correction
• Paraphrasing to add variety, ensure academic tone, and trim text to meet journal limits

With Paperpal Copilot, create a research paper introduction effortlessly. In this step-by-step guide, we’ll walk you through how Paperpal transforms your initial ideas into a polished and publication-ready introduction.

How to use Paperpal to write the Introduction section

Step 1: Sign up on Paperpal and click on the Copilot feature, under this choose Outlines > Research Article > Introduction

Step 2: Add your unstructured notes or initial draft, whether in English or another language, to Paperpal, which is to be used as the base for your content.

Step 3: Fill in the specifics, such as your field of study, brief description or details you want to include, which will help the AI generate the outline for your Introduction.

Step 4: Use this outline and sentence suggestions to develop your content, adding citations where needed and modifying it to align with your specific research focus.

Step 5: Turn to Paperpal’s granular language checks to refine your content, tailor it to reflect your personal writing style, and ensure it effectively conveys your message.

You can use the same process to develop each section of your article, and finally your research paper in half the time and without any of the stress.

The purpose of the research paper introduction is to introduce the reader to the problem definition, justify the need for the study, and describe the main theme of the study. The aim is to gain the reader’s attention by providing them with necessary background information and establishing the main purpose and direction of the research.

The length of the research paper introduction can vary across journals and disciplines. While there are no strict word limits for writing the research paper introduction, an ideal length would be one page, with a maximum of 400 words over 1-4 paragraphs. Generally, it is one of the shorter sections of the paper as the reader is assumed to have at least a reasonable knowledge about the topic. 2 For example, for a study evaluating the role of building design in ensuring fire safety, there is no need to discuss definitions and nature of fire in the introduction; you could start by commenting upon the existing practices for fire safety and how your study will add to the existing knowledge and practice.

When deciding what to include in the research paper introduction, the rest of the paper should also be considered. The aim is to introduce the reader smoothly to the topic and facilitate an easy read without much dependency on external sources. 3 Below is a list of elements you can include to prepare a research paper introduction outline and follow it when you are writing the research paper introduction. Topic introduction: This can include key definitions and a brief history of the topic. Research context and background: Offer the readers some general information and then narrow it down to specific aspects. Details of the research you conducted: A brief literature review can be included to support your arguments or line of thought. Rationale for the study: This establishes the relevance of your study and establishes its importance. Importance of your research: The main contributions are highlighted to help establish the novelty of your study Research hypothesis: Introduce your research question and propose an expected outcome. Organization of the paper: Include a short paragraph of 3-4 sentences that highlights your plan for the entire paper

Cite only works that are most relevant to your topic; as a general rule, you can include one to three. Note that readers want to see evidence of original thinking. So it is better to avoid using too many references as it does not leave much room for your personal standpoint to shine through. Citations in your research paper introduction support the key points, and the number of citations depend on the subject matter and the point discussed. If the research paper introduction is too long or overflowing with citations, it is better to cite a few review articles rather than the individual articles summarized in the review. A good point to remember when citing research papers in the introduction section is to include at least one-third of the references in the introduction.

The literature review plays a significant role in the research paper introduction section. A good literature review accomplishes the following: Introduces the topic – Establishes the study’s significance – Provides an overview of the relevant literature – Provides context for the study using literature – Identifies knowledge gaps However, remember to avoid making the following mistakes when writing a research paper introduction: Do not use studies from the literature review to aggressively support your research Avoid direct quoting Do not allow literature review to be the focus of this section. Instead, the literature review should only aid in setting a foundation for the manuscript.

Remember the following key points for writing a good research paper introduction: 4

• Avoid stuffing too much general information: Avoid including what an average reader would know and include only that information related to the problem being addressed in the research paper introduction. For example, when describing a comparative study of non-traditional methods for mechanical design optimization, information related to the traditional methods and differences between traditional and non-traditional methods would not be relevant. In this case, the introduction for the research paper should begin with the state-of-the-art non-traditional methods and methods to evaluate the efficiency of newly developed algorithms.
• Avoid packing too many references: Cite only the required works in your research paper introduction. The other works can be included in the discussion section to strengthen your findings.
• Avoid extensive criticism of previous studies: Avoid being overly critical of earlier studies while setting the rationale for your study. A better place for this would be the Discussion section, where you can highlight the advantages of your method.
• Avoid describing conclusions of the study: When writing a research paper introduction remember not to include the findings of your study. The aim is to let the readers know what question is being answered. The actual answer should only be given in the Results and Discussion section.

To summarize, the research paper introduction section should be brief yet informative. It should convince the reader the need to conduct the study and motivate him to read further. If you’re feeling stuck or unsure, choose trusted AI academic writing assistants like Paperpal to effortlessly craft your research paper introduction and other sections of your research article.

1. Jawaid, S. A., & Jawaid, M. (2019). How to write introduction and discussion. Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia, 13(Suppl 1), S18.

2. Dewan, P., & Gupta, P. (2016). Writing the title, abstract and introduction: Looks matter!. Indian pediatrics, 53, 235-241.

3. Cetin, S., & Hackam, D. J. (2005). An approach to the writing of a scientific Manuscript1. Journal of Surgical Research, 128(2), 165-167.

4. Bavdekar, S. B. (2015). Writing introduction: Laying the foundations of a research paper. Journal of the Association of Physicians of India, 63(7), 44-6.

Paperpal is a comprehensive AI writing toolkit that helps students and researchers achieve 2x the writing in half the time. It leverages 21+ years of STM experience and insights from millions of research articles to provide in-depth academic writing, language editing, and submission readiness support to help you write better, faster.  

Get accurate academic translations, rewriting support, grammar checks, vocabulary suggestions, and generative AI assistance that delivers human precision at machine speed. Try for free or upgrade to Paperpal Prime starting at US$19 a month to access premium features, including consistency, plagiarism, and 30+ submission readiness checks to help you succeed.  

Experience the future of academic writing – Sign up to Paperpal and start writing for free!  

Related Reads:

• Scientific Writing Style Guides Explained
• 5 Reasons for Rejection After Peer Review
• Ethical Research Practices For Research with Human Subjects
• 8 Most Effective Ways to Increase Motivation for Thesis Writing 

Practice vs. Practise: Learn the Difference

Academic paraphrasing: why paperpal’s rewrite should be your first choice , you may also like, how to write your research paper in apa..., how to choose a dissertation topic, how to write a phd research proposal, how to write an academic paragraph (step-by-step guide), research funding basics: what should a grant proposal..., how to write an abstract in research papers..., how to write dissertation acknowledgements, how to write the first draft of a..., mla works cited page: format, template & examples, how to write a high-quality conference paper.

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Research paper

Writing a Research Paper Conclusion | Step-by-Step Guide

Published on October 30, 2022 by Jack Caulfield . Revised on April 13, 2023.

• Restate the problem statement addressed in the paper
• Summarize your overall arguments or findings
• Suggest the key takeaways from your paper

The content of the conclusion varies depending on whether your paper presents the results of original empirical research or constructs an argument through engagement with sources .

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

Step 1: restate the problem, step 2: sum up the paper, step 3: discuss the implications, research paper conclusion examples, frequently asked questions about research paper conclusions.

The first task of your conclusion is to remind the reader of your research problem . You will have discussed this problem in depth throughout the body, but now the point is to zoom back out from the details to the bigger picture.

While you are restating a problem you’ve already introduced, you should avoid phrasing it identically to how it appeared in the introduction . Ideally, you’ll find a novel way to circle back to the problem from the more detailed ideas discussed in the body.

For example, an argumentative paper advocating new measures to reduce the environmental impact of agriculture might restate its problem as follows:

Meanwhile, an empirical paper studying the relationship of Instagram use with body image issues might present its problem like this:

“In conclusion …”

Avoid starting your conclusion with phrases like “In conclusion” or “To conclude,” as this can come across as too obvious and make your writing seem unsophisticated. The content and placement of your conclusion should make its function clear without the need for additional signposting.

Scribbr Citation Checker New

The AI-powered Citation Checker helps you avoid common mistakes such as:

• Missing commas and periods
• Incorrect usage of “et al.”
• Ampersands (&) in narrative citations
• Missing reference entries

Having zoomed back in on the problem, it’s time to summarize how the body of the paper went about addressing it, and what conclusions this approach led to.

Depending on the nature of your research paper, this might mean restating your thesis and arguments, or summarizing your overall findings.

Argumentative paper: Restate your thesis and arguments

In an argumentative paper, you will have presented a thesis statement in your introduction, expressing the overall claim your paper argues for. In the conclusion, you should restate the thesis and show how it has been developed through the body of the paper.

Briefly summarize the key arguments made in the body, showing how each of them contributes to proving your thesis. You may also mention any counterarguments you addressed, emphasizing why your thesis holds up against them, particularly if your argument is a controversial one.

Don’t go into the details of your evidence or present new ideas; focus on outlining in broad strokes the argument you have made.

Empirical paper: Summarize your findings

In an empirical paper, this is the time to summarize your key findings. Don’t go into great detail here (you will have presented your in-depth results and discussion already), but do clearly express the answers to the research questions you investigated.

Describe your main findings, even if they weren’t necessarily the ones you expected or hoped for, and explain the overall conclusion they led you to.

Having summed up your key arguments or findings, the conclusion ends by considering the broader implications of your research. This means expressing the key takeaways, practical or theoretical, from your paper—often in the form of a call for action or suggestions for future research.

Argumentative paper: Strong closing statement

An argumentative paper generally ends with a strong closing statement. In the case of a practical argument, make a call for action: What actions do you think should be taken by the people or organizations concerned in response to your argument?

If your topic is more theoretical and unsuitable for a call for action, your closing statement should express the significance of your argument—for example, in proposing a new understanding of a topic or laying the groundwork for future research.

Empirical paper: Future research directions

In a more empirical paper, you can close by either making recommendations for practice (for example, in clinical or policy papers), or suggesting directions for future research.

Whatever the scope of your own research, there will always be room for further investigation of related topics, and you’ll often discover new questions and problems during the research process .

Finish your paper on a forward-looking note by suggesting how you or other researchers might build on this topic in the future and address any limitations of the current paper.

Full examples of research paper conclusions are shown in the tabs below: one for an argumentative paper, the other for an empirical paper.

• Argumentative paper
• Empirical paper

While the role of cattle in climate change is by now common knowledge, countries like the Netherlands continually fail to confront this issue with the urgency it deserves. The evidence is clear: To create a truly futureproof agricultural sector, Dutch farmers must be incentivized to transition from livestock farming to sustainable vegetable farming. As well as dramatically lowering emissions, plant-based agriculture, if approached in the right way, can produce more food with less land, providing opportunities for nature regeneration areas that will themselves contribute to climate targets. Although this approach would have economic ramifications, from a long-term perspective, it would represent a significant step towards a more sustainable and resilient national economy. Transitioning to sustainable vegetable farming will make the Netherlands greener and healthier, setting an example for other European governments. Farmers, policymakers, and consumers must focus on the future, not just on their own short-term interests, and work to implement this transition now.

As social media becomes increasingly central to young people’s everyday lives, it is important to understand how different platforms affect their developing self-conception. By testing the effect of daily Instagram use among teenage girls, this study established that highly visual social media does indeed have a significant effect on body image concerns, with a strong correlation between the amount of time spent on the platform and participants’ self-reported dissatisfaction with their appearance. However, the strength of this effect was moderated by pre-test self-esteem ratings: Participants with higher self-esteem were less likely to experience an increase in body image concerns after using Instagram. This suggests that, while Instagram does impact body image, it is also important to consider the wider social and psychological context in which this usage occurs: Teenagers who are already predisposed to self-esteem issues may be at greater risk of experiencing negative effects. Future research into Instagram and other highly visual social media should focus on establishing a clearer picture of how self-esteem and related constructs influence young people’s experiences of these platforms. Furthermore, while this experiment measured Instagram usage in terms of time spent on the platform, observational studies are required to gain more insight into different patterns of usage—to investigate, for instance, whether active posting is associated with different effects than passive consumption of social media content.

If you’re unsure about the conclusion, it can be helpful to ask a friend or fellow student to read your conclusion and summarize the main takeaways.

• Do they understand from your conclusion what your research was about?
• Are they able to summarize the implications of your findings?
• Can they answer your research question based on your conclusion?

You can also get an expert to proofread and feedback your paper with a paper editing service .

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

The conclusion of a research paper has several key elements you should make sure to include:

• A restatement of the research problem
• A summary of your key arguments and/or findings
• A short discussion of the implications of your research

No, it’s not appropriate to present new arguments or evidence in the conclusion . While you might be tempted to save a striking argument for last, research papers follow a more formal structure than this.

All your findings and arguments should be presented in the body of the text (more specifically in the results and discussion sections if you are following a scientific structure). The conclusion is meant to summarize and reflect on the evidence and arguments you have already presented, not introduce new ones.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Caulfield, J. (2023, April 13). Writing a Research Paper Conclusion | Step-by-Step Guide. Scribbr. Retrieved August 23, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/research-paper/research-paper-conclusion/

Is this article helpful?

Jack Caulfield

Other students also liked, writing a research paper introduction | step-by-step guide, how to create a structured research paper outline | example, checklist: writing a great research paper, what is your plagiarism score.

• Create an elaborate article review
• Methods for choosing a writing agency
• Writing an accounting thesis
• Making a draft for yor essay
• A Rose for Emily essay topics
• Current essay writing prompts
• An Expert Essay Sample on Catholicism vs. Christianity
• An essay sample on homelessness
• Finding quality samples
• Inspiring college paper topics
• What not to mention in a personal goal essay
• Custom essays cons
• Sample essay on Nike supply chain
• Creating literary essay writing prompts
• Selecting a writing company
• Impact of social media on churches Essay Sample
• Argument topics: the top 10
• Successful admission essays
• Sample brief descriptive essays
• How to succeed with your persuasive essays
• Coming up with a science thesis topic
• Essay example on The Feminine Mystique
• Looking for a custom essay writing agency
• Free essay examples
• How to develop your writing skills
• Getting professional help with an essay
• Writing a paper on a disease
• Why an outline is important
• Popular research subjects for a paper
• Writing an essay on the legalize in the US
• Buying essays at a fair cost
• Essay sample on kids adoption by gays
• Writing a thesis in two weeks
• Getting non-plagiarised papers
• Personal statement writing service
• Choosing the right paper format
• Finishing your report
• Choosing funny process essay topics
• Backuping your thesis references database
• Paying for a thesis
• Types of dissertations
• Research paper writing guide
• Theology term paper sample
• Why is it risky to buy a cheap paper
• Obtaining sociology thesis proposal samples
• Examples of topics for illustration paper
• Ethics and corporate America essay sample
• Essay Writing Help: Differences Between Various Type
• An essay sample on health care
• How to Write a Thesis Statement
• Picking a topic for persuasive essay on China
• Guidelines for buying a custom paper
• Article Writing Help: Understanding the End Goal
• Online academic writing help: pros and cons
• Hiring a competent essay writer
• Following an essay structural format
• Research paper examples are not cheap
• Crafting a synthesis paper
• Organisational behaviour issues essay sample
• Tricks on writing an amazing school essays
• Alcohol research paper sample
• Writing a compare contrast paper
• Spotting common essay errors
• Purchasing a paper for cheap
• Searching for a paper writer
• How to create a narrative essay
• Picture of Dorian Gray essay sample
• How to create a reflective piece
• Writing an illustration essay on animal cruelty
• Finding a legitimate online help
• Capstone project samples can be deceiving
• Writing a paper on PTSD & suicide
• Hurricane Katrina: sample paper
• Dissertation editing fees
• Choosing expository paper topics
• Writing a thesis methods section
• Discussion essay writing guide
• How to format your essay
• Best Essay Sample On Antigone
• Persuasive essay writing secrets
• 5 paragraph essay writing
• Expert research paper help

Basics of Writing a Research Paper on a Disease

Writing a research paper on a disease can look like an overwhelming task at the outset, but when you have a general topic it makes it a little easier to start out. There are so many different kinds of diseases and it’s such a well-researched topic that it should be a relatively simple set of tasks compared to other kinds of research papers.

Find a Topic

You already have the first struggle done: finding your umbrella topic, which in this case is diseases. Now you just have to narrow it down. There are several ways to do this.

• Consider your experience. Have you ever known anyone with a particular kind of disease? Has there been something in the news recently about an outbreak or epidemic? Do you yourself have any kind of disease?
• Chances are you are connected to someone with a disease in some way. Draw from your own experience to zero in on a topic.
• Ask a medical professional what diseases he or she most frequently comes across. This may be your best bet as far as finding information if it is widely known.

Researching

A simple internet search will get you far, but there are other ways to find information too.

• Take advantage of whatever resources are available in your school’s library. Most times, a school or university’s library will have access to journals and information databases that contain vast quantities of academic and research publications. Ask your librarian what sort of resources are available to you in this thread.
• It might be old school, but look through paper versions of publications too. Oftentimes there is information present in physical books that never get scanned and entered into an online database or published online. Look in your school’s library for this too, as well as looking at your local discount book store.
• Again, if you know people in the medical field, ask them for references as to how to find information. Most of them have to renew their license or do tests once every few years, so it is likely they would know where to find study information, text books, or information on new research. These people are valuable resources to you.

Once you’ve selected a topic and researched it thoroughly, treat your research paper on disease like any other paper. Do a thorough outline to organize your paper, write your paper with references and a reference page, and conclude strong. Once you’ve written it, read it aloud and have a friend read it, too, so you know what to revise.

Academic writing tips

• Trusting term paper services
• Where to find great sample papers
• Research paper on gun control
• Critical analysis paper writing
• Crosby manufacturing corporation essay sample

• https://www.writingjobz.com/
• Essay help online

Found a great educational resource for college students? Contact us

About our educational resource

We are a group of academic enthusiasts working on an all-in-one resource for high school, college, university and graduate students across the world. We strive to enhance your English writing skills, as well as your ability to construct quality, well-researched essays, term and research projects. If you have a problematic assignment, just do not fall into despair. Read our writing tips and get your A+

An Easy Way to Write Essays on Diseases

On the one hand, writing essays on diseases seems to be not that tricky. You have an opportunity to be original and even creative. Can you imagine the number of diseases that you can highlight in your disease essay? What is more, there is a lot of material available almost about every disease.

On the other hand, this great variety of ideas may confuse you. What particular disease should you choose to present in the disease essay (unless specified, of course)?

Well, there is just one thing we can advise you. Think of the disease that you are interested in most of all. Does someone you know suffer from Alzheimer’s disease? Do you have a neighbor who suffers from some kind of exotic disease? Choose whatever you want to learn more about.

Fine, you will pick a good idea for your essay on disease. What is next? Next, you need to think of how to disclose your topic. We can offer a simple plan that will help you create an informative essay on diseases.

Start with a brief overview of the chosen disease. Explain why you have selected this particular disease.

Tell about the causes of the disease, people who are more likely to have it, the main disease carriers, etc.

Describe the main symptoms of the disease in your essay. Here you can also tell about the major effects that the disease has on the human organism.

Finally, describe in your essay on disease the ways of preventing and treating it. Certainly, if you want to amaze your tutor with the essay on disease, this part of the paper should be based on the most up-to-date facts.

If you need more ideas for your essay on disease, make use of the following links: essays on alcoholism and an essay on HIV/AIDS .

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Published: 19 August 2024

Chronic adaptive deep brain stimulation versus conventional stimulation in Parkinson’s disease: a blinded randomized feasibility trial

• Carina R. Oehrn   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8451-7960 1   na1 ,
• Stephanie Cernera 1   na1 ,
• Lauren H. Hammer 2   na1 ,
• Maria Shcherbakova 1 ,
• Jiaang Yao   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7062-2508 1 , 3 ,
• Amelia Hahn 1 ,
• Sarah Wang 2 , 4 ,
• Jill L. Ostrem 2 , 4 ,
• Simon Little   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6249-6230 2 , 3 , 4   na2 &
• Philip A. Starr   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2733-4003 1 , 3 , 4   na2  

Nature Medicine ( 2024 ) Cite this article

2674 Accesses

722 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Biomedical engineering
• Neurophysiology
• Parkinson's disease

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is a widely used therapy for Parkinson’s disease (PD) but lacks dynamic responsiveness to changing clinical and neural states. Feedback control might improve therapeutic effectiveness, but the optimal control strategy and additional benefits of ‘adaptive’ neurostimulation are unclear. Here we present the results of a blinded randomized cross-over pilot trial aimed at determining the neural correlates of specific motor signs in individuals with PD and the feasibility of using these signals to drive adaptive DBS. Four male patients with PD were recruited from a population undergoing DBS implantation for motor fluctuations, with each patient receiving adaptive DBS and continuous DBS. We identified stimulation-entrained gamma oscillations in the subthalamic nucleus or motor cortex as optimal markers of high versus low dopaminergic states and their associated residual motor signs in all four patients. We then demonstrated improved motor symptoms and quality of life with adaptive compared to clinically optimized standard stimulation. The results of this pilot trial highlight the promise of personalized adaptive neurostimulation in PD based on data-driven selection of neural signals. Furthermore, these findings provide the foundation for further larger clinical trials to evaluate the efficacy of personalized adaptive neurostimulation in PD and other neurological disorders. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT03582891 .

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 12 print issues and online access

195,33 € per year

only 16,28 € per issue

Buy this article

• Purchase on SpringerLink
• Instant access to full article PDF

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

Emerging technologies for improved deep brain stimulation

Eight-hours conventional versus adaptive deep brain stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus in Parkinson’s disease

Modulation of subthalamic beta oscillations by movement, dopamine, and deep brain stimulation in Parkinson’s disease

Data availability.

De-identified individual participant data, including neural, wearable and digital diary data, are shared on the Data Archive for the BRAIN Initiative website ( https://dabi.loni.usc.edu/ ; https://doi.org/10.18120/cq9c-d057 ). The study protocol is provided in the Supplementary Information . The Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption is available on the Open Mind website ( https://osf.io/cmndq/ ). Data will be available permanently with no restrictions, for purposes of replicating the findings or conducting meta-analyses.

Code availability

Code written in C# and MATLAB, which operates the investigational device and extracts raw neural data, is available on the Open Mind GitHub platform ( https://openmind-consortium.github.io ). The code for biomarker identification implemented in MATLAB is available in the repository Code Ocean, without restrictions 59 , except for code related to linear discriminant analysis (Fig. 4c–e ), which will be made available after publication of a subsequent manuscript (currently in preparation) that uses this code.

Lozano, A. M. et al. Deep brain stimulation: current challenges and future directions. Nat. Rev. Neurol. 15 , 148–160 (2019).

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Neumann, W. -J., Gilron, R., Little, S. & Tinkhauser, G. Adaptive deep brain stimulation: from experimental evidence toward practical implementation. Mov. Disord . https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.29415 (2023).

Marceglia, S. et al. Deep brain stimulation: is it time to change gears by closing the loop? J. Neural Eng. 18 , 061001 (2021).

Article   Google Scholar  

Stanslaski, S. et al. Design and validation of a fully implantable, chronic, closed-loop neuromodulation device with concurrent sensing and stimulation. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 20 , 410–421 (2012).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Stanslaski, S. et al. A chronically implantable neural coprocessor for investigating the treatment of neurological disorders. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Circuits Syst. 12 , 1230–1245 (2018).

Thenaisie, Y. et al. Towards adaptive deep brain stimulation: clinical and technical notes on a novel commercial device for chronic brain sensing. J. Neural Eng. 18 , 042002 (2021).

Starr, P. A. Totally implantable bidirectional neural prostheses: a flexible platform for innovation in neuromodulation. Front. Neurosci. 12 , 619 (2018).

Nakajima, A. et al. Case report: chronic adaptive deep brain stimulation personalizing therapy based on Parkinsonian state. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 15 , 702961 (2021).

Gilron, R. et al. Long-term wireless streaming of neural recordings for circuit discovery and adaptive stimulation in individuals with Parkinson’s disease. Nat. Biotechnol. 39 , 1078–1085 (2021).

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Little, S. & Brown, P. Debugging adaptive deep brain stimulation for Parkinson’s disease. Mov. Disord. 35 , 555–561 (2020).

Wilkins, K. B., Melbourne, J. A., Akella, P. & Bronte-Stewart, H. M. Unraveling the complexities of programming neural adaptive deep brain stimulation in Parkinson’s disease. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 17 , 1310393 (2023).

Ansó, J. et al. Concurrent stimulation and sensing in bi-directional brain interfaces: a multi-site translational experience. J. Neural Eng. 19 , 026025 (2022).

Ascherio, A. & Schwarzschild, M. A. The epidemiology of Parkinson’s disease: risk factors and prevention. Lancet Neurol. 15 , 1257–1272 (2016).

Vitek, J. L. et al. Subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation with a multiple independent constant current-controlled device in Parkinson’s disease (INTREPID): a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, sham-controlled study. Lancet Neurol. 19 , 491–501 (2020).

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Okun, M. S. et al. Subthalamic deep brain stimulation with a constant-current device in Parkinson’s disease: an open-label randomised controlled trial. Lancet Neurol. 11 , 140–149 (2012).

Weaver, F. M. et al. Bilateral deep brain stimulation vs best medical therapy for patients with advanced Parkinson disease: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 301 , 63–73 (2009).

Deuschl, G. et al. A randomized trial of deep-brain stimulation for Parkinson’s disease. N. Engl. J. Med. 355 , 896–908 (2006).

Follett, K. A. et al. Pallidal versus subthalamic deep-brain stimulation for Parkinson’s disease. N. Engl. J. Med. 362 , 2077–2091 (2010).

Odekerken, V. J. et al. Subthalamic nucleus versus globus pallidus bilateral deep brain stimulation for advanced Parkinson’s disease (NSTAPS study): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Neurol. 12 , 37–44 (2013).

Bronte-Stewart, H. et al. Adaptive DBS Algorithm for Personalized Therapy in Parkinson’s Disease: ADAPT-PD clinical trial methodology and early data (P1-11.002). Neurology https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000203099 (2023).

Marceglia, S. et al. Double-blind cross-over pilot trial protocol to evaluate the safety and preliminary efficacy of long-term adaptive deep brain stimulation in patients with Parkinson’s disease. BMJ Open 12 , e049955 (2022).

Kühn, A. A., Kupsch, A., Schneider, G.-H. & Brown, P. Reduction in subthalamic 8-35 Hz oscillatory activity correlates with clinical improvement in Parkinson’s disease. Eur. J. Neurosci. 23 , 1956–1960 (2006).

Kühn, A. A. et al. High-frequency stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus suppresses oscillatory β activity in patients with Parkinson’s disease in parallel with improvement in motor performance. J. Neurosci. 28 , 6165–6173 (2008).

Little, S. et al. Adaptive deep brain stimulation in advanced Parkinson disease. Ann. Neurol. 74 , 449–457 (2013).

Velisar, A. et al. Dual threshold neural closed loop deep brain stimulation in Parkinson disease patients. Brain Stimul. 12 , 868–876 (2019).

Bocci, T. et al. Eight-hours conventional versus adaptive deep brain stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus in Parkinson’s disease. NPJ Park. Dis. 7 , 88 (2021).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Tinkhauser, G. et al. The modulatory effect of adaptive deep brain stimulation on beta bursts in Parkinson’s disease. Brain J. Neurol. 140 , 1053–1067 (2017).

Bronstein, J. M. et al. Deep brain stimulation for Parkinson disease: an expert consensus and review of key issues. Arch. Neurol. 68 , 165 (2011).

Swann, N. C. et al. Gamma oscillations in the hyperkinetic state detected with chronic human brain recordings in Parkinson’s disease. J. Neurosci. 36 , 6445–6458 (2016).

Swann, N. C. et al. Adaptive deep brain stimulation for Parkinson’s disease using motor cortex sensing. J. Neural Eng. 15 , 046006 (2018).

Bove, F., Genovese, D. & Moro, E. Developments in the mechanistic understanding and clinical application of deep brain stimulation for Parkinson’s disease. Expert Rev. Neurother. 22 , 789–803 (2022).

Wiest, C. et al. Finely-tuned gamma oscillations: spectral characteristics and links to dyskinesia. Exp. Neurol. 351 , 113999 (2022).

Sermon, J. J. et al. Sub-harmonic entrainment of cortical gamma oscillations to deep brain stimulation in Parkinson’s disease: model based predictions and validation in three human subjects. Brain Stimul. 16 , 1412–1424 (2023).

Olaru, M. et al. Motor network gamma oscillations in chronic home recordings predict dyskinesia in Parkinson’s disease. Brain J. Neurol . https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awae004 (2024).

Herdman, M. et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual. Life Res. 20 , 1727–1736 (2011).

Horne, M. K., McGregor, S. & Bergquist, F. An objective fluctuation score for Parkinson’s disease. PLoS ONE 10 , e0124522 (2015).

Nutt, J. G., Woodward, W. R., Hammerstad, J. P., Carter, J. H. & Anderson, J. L. The “on–off” phenomenon in Parkinson’s disease: relation to levodopa absorption and transport. N. Engl. J. Med. 310 , 483–488 (1984).

van Rheede, J. J. et al. Diurnal modulation of subthalamic beta oscillatory power in Parkinson’s disease patients during deep brain stimulation. NPJ Parkinsons Dis. 8 , 88 (2022).

Tinkhauser, G. & Moraud, E. M. Controlling clinical states governed by different temporal dynamics with closed-loop deep brain stimulation: a principled framework. Front. Neurosci. 15 , 734186 (2021).

Alagapan, S. et al. Cingulate dynamics track depression recovery with deep brain stimulation. Nature 622 , 130–138 (2023).

Heck, C. N. et al. Two-year seizure reduction in adults with medically intractable partial onset epilepsy treated with responsive neurostimulation: final results of the RNS System Pivotal trial. Epilepsia 55 , 432–441 (2014).

Scangos, K. W. et al. Closed-loop neuromodulation in an individual with treatment-resistant depression. Nat. Med. 27 , 1696–1700 (2021).

Vizcarra, J. A. et al. Subthalamic deep brain stimulation and levodopa in Parkinson’s disease: a meta-analysis of combined effects. J. Neurol. 266 , 289–297 (2019).

Brown, P. et al. Dopamine dependency of oscillations between subthalamic nucleus and pallidum in Parkinson’s disease. J. Neurosci. 21 , 1033–1038 (2001).

Halje, P. et al. Levodopa-induced dyskinesia is strongly associated with resonant cortical oscillations. J. Neurosci. 32 , 16541–16551 (2012).

Wiest, C. et al. Subthalamic deep brain stimulation induces finely-tuned gamma oscillations in the absence of levodopa. Neurobiol. Dis. 152 , 105287 (2021).

Arlotti, M. et al. Eight-hours adaptive deep brain stimulation in patients with Parkinson disease. Neurology 90 , e971–e976 (2018).

Foffani, G. & Alegre, M. Brain oscillations and Parkinson disease. Handb. Clin. Neurol. 184 , 259–271 (2022).

Feldmann, L. K. et al. Toward therapeutic electrophysiology: beta-band suppression as a biomarker in chronic local field potential recordings. NPJ Parkinsons Dis. 8 , 44 (2022).

Chen, Y. et al. Neuromodulation effects of deep brain stimulation on beta rhythm: a longitudinal local field potential study. Brain Stimul. 13 , 1784–1792 (2020).

Olson, J. D. et al. Comparison of subdural and subgaleal recordings of cortical high-gamma activity in humans. Clin. Neurophysiol. 127 , 277–284 (2016).

Piña-Fuentes, D. et al. Acute effects of adaptive deep brain stimulation in Parkinson’s disease. Brain Stimul. 13 , 1507–1516 (2020).

Busch, J. L. et al. Single threshold adaptive deep brain stimulation in Parkinson’s disease depends on parameter selection, movement state and controllability of subthalamic beta activity. Brain Stimul. 17 , 125–133 (2024).

Merk, T. et al. Machine learning based brain signal decoding for intelligent adaptive deep brain stimulation. Exp. Neurol. 351 , 113993 (2022).

Davis, T. S. et al. LeGUI: a fast and accurate graphical user interface for automated detection and anatomical localization of intracranial electrodes. Front. Neurosci. 15 , 769872 (2021).

Horn, A. et al. Lead-DBS v2: towards a comprehensive pipeline for deep brain stimulation imaging. NeuroImage 184 , 293–316 (2019).

Oehrn, C. R. et al. Chronic adaptive deep brain stimulation is superior to conventional stimulation in Parkinson's disease: a blinded randomized feasibility trial [Source Data]. Data Archive for the Brain Initiative https://doi.org/10.18120/cq9c-d057 (2024).

Oostenveld, R., Fries, P., Maris, E. & Schoffelen, J. -M. FieldTrip: open source software for advanced analysis of MEG, EEG, and invasive electrophysiological data. Comput. Intell. Neurosci. 2011 , 156869 (2011).

Oehrn, C. R. et al. Chronic adaptive deep brain stimulation is superior to conventional stimulation in Parkinson's disease: a blinded randomized feasibility trial. Code Ocean . https://doi.org/10.24433/CO.5656158.v1 (2024).

Oehrn, C. R. et al. Direct electrophysiological evidence for prefrontal control of hippocampal processing during voluntary forgetting. Curr. Biol. 28 , 3016–3022 (2018).

Maris, E. & Oostenveld, R. Nonparametric statistical testing of EEG- and MEG-data. J. Neurosci. Methods 164 , 177–190 (2007).

Gilron, R. et al. Sleep-aware adaptive deep brain stimulation control: chronic use at home with dual independent linear discriminate detectors. Front. Neurosci. 15 , 732499 (2021).

Cernera, S. et al. Wearable sensor-driven responsive deep brain stimulation for essential tremor. Brain Stimul. 14 , 1434–1443 (2021).

Hammer, L. H., Kochanski, R. B., Starr, P. A. & Little, S. Artifact characterization and a multipurpose template-based offline removal solution for a sensing-enabled deep brain stimulation device. Stereotact. Funct. Neurosurg. 100 , 168–183 (2022).

Neumann, W. -J. et al. The sensitivity of ECG contamination to surgical implantation site in brain computer interfaces. Brain Stimul. 14 , 1301–1306 (2021).

Goetz, C. G. et al. Movement Disorder Society-sponsored revision of the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS): process, format, and clinimetric testing plan. Mov. Disord. 22 , 41–47 (2007).

McAuley, M. D. Incorrect calculation of total electrical energy delivered by a deep brain stimulator. Brain Stimul. 13 , 1414–1415 (2020).

Download references

Acknowledgements

The study was supported by National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) UH3NS100544 (to P.A.S.), the Parkinson Fellowship of the Thiemann Foundation (to C.R.O.), NINDS F32NS129627 (to S.C.), NINDS R25NS070680 (to L.H.H.) and TUYF Charitable Trust Fund (to J.Y.). Research reported in this publication was also partly supported by R01 NS090913 (to P.A.S.), NINDS K23NS120037 (to S.L.) and R01 NS131405 (to S.L.). Investigational devices were provided at no charge by the manufacturer, but the manufacturer had no role in the conduct, analysis or interpretation of the study. The Open Mind consortium for technology dissemination, funded by NINDS U24 NS113637 (to P.A.S.), provided technical resources for the use of the Summit RC+S neural interface. We thank T. Wozny for lead localization, W. Chiong for neuroethical input, C. Smyth, R. Gilron, R. Wilt and C. de Hemptinne for technical contributions and K. Probst for medical art (Fig. 1a ). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

Author information

These authors contributed equally: Carina R. Oehrn, Stephanie Cernera, Lauren H. Hammer.

These authors jointly supervised this work: Simon Little, Philip A Starr.

Authors and Affiliations

Department of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA

Carina R. Oehrn, Stephanie Cernera, Maria Shcherbakova, Jiaang Yao, Amelia Hahn & Philip A. Starr

Department of Neurology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA

Lauren H. Hammer, Sarah Wang, Jill L. Ostrem & Simon Little

Graduate Program in Bioengineering, University of California, Berkeley and University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA

Jiaang Yao, Simon Little & Philip A. Starr

Weill Institute for Neurosciences, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA

Sarah Wang, Jill L. Ostrem, Simon Little & Philip A. Starr

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

P.A.S., S.L., J.L.O., C.R.O., S.C. and L.H.H. designed the study and analysis pipeline. C.R.O., S.C., L.H.H., M.S. and J.Y. collected and analyzed the data. A.H. facilitated patient communication and coordination throughout the study. S.W. oversaw study administration, including institutional review board approval and regulatory compliance. C.R.O., S.C., L.H.H., S.L. and P.A.S. drafted the manuscript, and all authors reviewed, commented on and approved the final version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carina R. Oehrn .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

S.L. consults for Iota Biosciences. J.L.O. reports support from Medtronic and Boston Scientific for research and education and consults for AbbVie and Rune Labs. P.A.S. receives support from Medtronic and Boston Scientific for fellowship education. C.R.O., S.C., L.H.H., M.S., J.Y., A.H. and S.W. declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information.

Nature Medicine thanks Jaimie Henderson, Andrea Kühn and Theoden Netoff for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Primary Handling Editor: Jerome Staal, in collaboration with the Nature Medicine team.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data

Extended data fig. 1 localization of leads over sensorimotor cortex and within subthalamic nucleus in native space..

a–d , Example localization of cortical and subcortical leads in patient 2, generated by fusing postoperative CT with preoperative MRI scans. Contacts appear as white CT artifacts due to metal content and are labeled with red arrows. a , Cortical leads on axial T1-weighted MRI through the vertex. b , STN leads on axial T2-weighted MRI through the region of the dorsal STN, 3 mm inferior to the intercommissural plane. c,d , Cortical leads on oblique sagittal T1-weighted MRI passing through the long axis of the lead array in left (c) and right (d) hemispheres, respectively. e–h , Location of cortical leads for each patient overlayed on 3D reconstruction of cortex rendered using the Locate Electrodes Graphical User Interface (LeGUI). Electrodes used in the anterior and posterior cortical montages are shown in cyan and yellow, respectively. For patient 1 (e) , 2 (f) and 4 (h) , anterior and posterior montages covered the pre- and postcentral gyrus, respectively. For patient 3, right side (g) , the anterior montage included one electrode on the middle frontal and one on the precentral gyrus. The posterior montage comprised one pre- and one postcentral electrode. In all figures, red arrows indicate the location of the central sulcus.

Extended Data Fig. 2 Initial and finalized adaptive stimulation parameters and example adaptive control policies.

a , Suggested initial parameters for algorithms developed for time scales of minutes to hours, as identified during steps 5 and 6 of the pipeline. An update rate of 10 s typically provided a signal to noise ratio that allowed for adequate discrimination between the presence and absence of the most bothersome symptom, and this could often be improved with a further increase in update rate. The ramp rate chosen for each patient depended on the results of step 5 (we chose an example of 1 mA/s). b , Detailed final adaptive stimulation parameters including control signals, thresholds, FFT interval, update rates, blanking periods, onset and termination duration, and ramp rates used for each patient and hemisphere. c–e , Examples of potential control policies that can be used for an adaptive algorithm, using artificial data. The upper subpanels of each subfigure illustrate an on-state biomarker (blue), as used in our study, along with thresholds (red). Lower subpanels demonstrate the adjustment of stimulation amplitude based on the relationship of the neural signal to the thresholds. c , A single threshold control policy with two stimulation amplitudes. When the biomarker is above the threshold, stimulation amplitude decreases and once below threshold, stimulation amplitude increases. d , A dual threshold control policy with three stimulation amplitudes (not used in this study), which may be applied to address three symptom states. When the neural signal is below both thresholds, the stimulation amplitude is high (for example, 4 mA). When the biomarker is between the two thresholds, stimulation adjusts to a middle amplitude (for example, 3 mA). When the biomarker exceeds the second threshold, stimulation decreases to the low amplitude (for example, 2 mA). e , A control policy utilizing a middle state as noise buffer. Stimulation is high when the control signal is below the bottom threshold and stimulation is low when the control signal is above the top threshold. When the control signal is between the two thresholds, it remains at the level of the stimulation amplitude prior to crossing the threshold (that is, no changes are made).

Extended Data Fig. 3 Neural biomarkers of medication effects identified in-clinic.

a,b , All tables show the results from our within-patient non-parametric cluster-based permutation analyses using in-clinic recordings during two medication states (off vs. on) and stimulation conditions (low vs. high stimulation amplitude). P -values were Bonferroni-corrected for multiple comparisons. Note that p < 10 −3 indicates that the cluster was found in all 1000 permutations. This means the probability of observing this effect by chance is less than 1 in 1000. a , Statistics for the largest main effect of medication, stimulation, and their interaction for each patient and hemisphere when searching the whole frequency space (2–100 Hz) across brain regions. Frequencies represent the center frequency of 1-Hz wide power spectral density bins. For all four patients (five out of six hemispheres), we found that gamma power (specifically, stimulation-entrained gamma in four hemispheres) in the STN or cortex was the best predictor of medication state (in pat-3L, there was no significant effect of medication in any frequency band in clinic, but at home symptom monitoring identified cortical stimulation-entrained gamma power as neural biomarker; Extended Data Fig. 4 ). Positive Cohen’s d values for the medication effect highlight that the neural biomarker was higher during on-medication states. Positive Cohen’s d values for the stimulation effect indicate that the neural biomarker was higher during on-stimulation states (independent of medication), which could result in undesirable self-triggering of the algorithm (threshold crossing of the neural biomarker linked to stimulation change itself, rather than true fluctuations of medication states and symptoms). Therefore, for patient 1, we excluded 63 and 67 Hz from the subsequently used control signal (positive Cohen’s d main effect of stimulation). For patients 2, 3 and 4, we did not find stimulation effects that positively modulated biomarkers and therefore were unrestricted in biomarker selection. b , When constraining the anatomic location and frequency space to STN beta oscillations (13–30 Hz), STN spectral beta power was only predictive for medication state in two hemispheres (pat-2R and pat-4) and smaller in effect size than cortical/STN stimulation-entrained gamma oscillations for all patients.

Extended Data Fig. 4 Neural biomarkers of symptoms identified at-home.

We identified predictors of the most bothersome symptom (pat-1: bradykinesia, pat-2: lower limb dystonia), or the opposite symptom that limits the therapeutic window (pat-3 and pat-4: dyskinesia). a , Heatmaps of t -values derived from stepwise linear regressions using 1 Hz power bands between 2–100 Hz in the STN (left), anterior cortical montage (middle) and posterior cortical montage (right) to predict symptoms continuously measured with upper extremity wearable monitors for patients 1, 3 and 4 (patient 2’s bothersome symptom did not involve the upper extremity). b–d , Results from the linear regression (left) and linear discriminant analysis (LDA; right). P-values were Bonferroni-corrected for multiple comparisons (289 predictors). b , Both methods provide converging evidence that stimulation-entrained gamma power centered at half the stimulation frequency (65 Hz) in the STN and cortex optimally distinguishes hypo- and hyperkinetic symptoms. c , When constraining the anatomic location and frequency space to STN beta oscillations (13–30 Hz), frequency bands identified as most predictive were less discriminative than cortical/STN stimulation-entrained gamma oscillations (LDA: AUC < 0.7). Regression models resulted in smaller magnitude coefficients, with only one hemisphere demonstrating a significant negative association with hyperkinetic symptoms (pat-3L). d , STN beta frequency bands were also poorly predictive of wearable bradykinesia scores (AUC < 0.6), again with only one hemisphere demonstrating a significant effect in the regression model (corresponding to a positive relationship with hypokinetic symptoms; pat-3L). e , Comparison of LDA results for STN and cortical gamma activity in predicting bothersome symptoms. Neural signals selected for adaptive stimulation are shaded in grey. In three out of six hemispheres (pat-2L, pat-2R, pat-4), stimulation-entrained gamma activity in the STN distinguished between hypo- and hyperkinetic symptoms. For pat-2, STN stimulation-entrained spectral gamma power was the optimal biomarker used for aDBS in both hemispheres. In pat-4, stimulation-entrained gamma activity in the STN was a strong predictor of residual motor signs but slightly underperformed compared to cortical signals. f , Visual illustration of AUC values comparing STN and cortical gamma activity in predicting bothersome symptoms. For pat-4, the predictive value of stimulation-entrained spectral gamma power was only slightly reduced compared to cortical signals.

Extended Data Fig. 5 Beta oscillations in the STN.

a , Power spectral density in the STN based on in-clinic recordings off medication and off stimulation for all six hemispheres. All but one hemisphere (pat-1) exhibited a peak in the beta frequency band (illustrated in yellow). b , Example of the suppressive effect of DBS on STN beta oscillations precluding use of beta band activity as a biomarker of medication state during active stimulation (pat-2L, all data collected during the same in-clinic recording session). Off stimulation, the spectral peak in the beta frequency range was suppressed by medication (13–21 Hz, Cohens’ d  = −1.09, p < 10 −3 ). However, this medication effect diminished during active stimulation, even at low stimulation amplitudes (1.8 mA, largest effect in the beta band: 15–18 Hz, Cohens’ d  = 0.31, p  = 0.026). Data are corrected for stimulation-induced broadband shifts.

Extended Data Fig. 6 Effects of aDBS and cDBS on most bothersome symptom severity, additional motor symptoms, and sleep quality.

a–j , Bar plots illustrating the mean (±s.e.m.) self-reported symptoms, aside from the most bothersome symptoms, across testing days. Each dot represents the rating for one testing day (blue: cDBS, red: aDBS). These ratings constituted secondary outcome measures to ensure that we are not aggravating other motor and non-motor symptoms. a,b , Patient self-reported motor symptom severity from daily questionnaires (1 = least severe, 10 = most severe). Note that patients rated symptom severity (shown here) independently of symptom duration ; bar graphs for the latter are in Fig. 5a,b . Patient 3 did not record ratings within the instructed range of 1–10 and their data are therefore not reported. a , In addition to a decrease in the amount of daily hours with the most bothersome symptom (symptom duration , shown in Fig. 5a ), patients 1, 2, and 4 also experienced a significant improvement of symptom severity (pat-1: p < 10 −5 , pat-2: p  = 0.018, pat = 4: p  = 0.003). b , No subject reported worsened severity of their opposite symptom (pat-1: p  = 0.18, pat-2: p  = 1, pat-4: p  = 0.19). c–h , Comprehensive list of the self-reported duration of motor symptoms from daily questionnaires. These bar graphs illustrate only symptoms that were not identified by the patient as the most bothersome or as the opposite symptom. For each patient’s most bothersome symptom, results are displayed in Fig. 5a and panel a of this figure; and are labeled in c–h as not applicable (n/a). None of these “other” motor symptoms were worsened by aDBS, and patient 2 demonstrated significant improvement in the percentage of waking hours with dyskinesia ( d , p = 0.044) and gait disturbance ( h , p < 10 −4 ). i,j , Self-reported sleep quality (1 = poorest sleep, 10 = best sleep) and duration from daily questionnaires. aDBS provided no change in patients’ sleep characteristics. The number of testing days for each patient and condition used for statistical tests are summarized in Fig. 6a . Asterisks illustrate results from two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests. P-values for all within-subject control analyses were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate procedure and are indicated as: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

Extended Data Fig. 7 aDBS algorithm dynamics during nighttime.

a , Percent time spent at each stimulation amplitude during the night. Each dot represents the mean values of one night of aDBS testing across high stimulation states (orange) and low stimulation states (blue) in one hemisphere. Graphs are standard box plots (center: median; box limits: upper and lower quartiles; whiskers: minima = 25th percentile-1.5 times the interquartile range, maxima = 75th percentile+1.5 times the interquartile range). Each patient spent most of the night in the high stimulation state. b , Mean (±s.e.m.) total electrical energy delivered (TEED) during aDBS and cDBS overnight, showing increased TEED during aDBS, similar to daytime analyses (stimulation main effect: β  = 27.7, p  < 10 −25 , time main effect: β  = 0.05, p  = 0.377). Individually, TEED was increased in all hemispheres during aDBS (two-sided, one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test, pat-1: p < 10 −6 , pat-2R: p < 10 −5 , pat-2L: p < 10 −5 , pat-3R: p < 10 −6 , pat-3L: p < 10 −6 , pat-4: p < 10 −4 ). The number of testing nights for each patient and condition used for both illustrations are stated in Fig. 6a and are equivalent to the testing days. Asterisks illustrate results from two-sided one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank tests. P-values for TEED evaluations were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate procedure and are indicated as: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

Extended Data Fig. 8 Flowchart of biomarker identification analyses.

We identified neural biomarkers using standardized in-clinic and at-home recordings in patients’ naturalistic environments. Non-parametric cluster-based permutation analysis identified candidate spectral biomarkers from in-clinic data by assessing main effects of medication state, stimulation amplitude, and the interaction. Next, the predictability of neural biomarkers as robust aDBS control signals of symptom state was tested using at-home recordings. For patients where the most bothersome symptom was monitored by a wearable device (for example, upper extremity bradykinesia or dyskinesia), linear stepwise regression was used to take advantage of the continuous nature of the symptom measurements. The most predictive frequency bands and recording sites were selected based on t -values. If the patient’s most bothersome symptom could not be captured by wearable monitors, the patient’s motor diaries and streaming app entries instead labeled the presence of symptoms. A linear discriminant analysis (LDA) based method identified the most predictive frequency band and recording site from these discretely labeled neural signal data, as measured by the area under the receiver operating curve (AUC). We also applied the LDA-based approach to symptoms measured by wearable monitors by mapping the continuous wearable scores to discrete symptom labels using a patient-specific dichotomization. This dichotomization allowed for subsequent offline assessment of the prediction accuracy based on multiple neural biomarkers combined as shown in Fig. 4e (note for online aDBS only single power band classifiers were implemented, as multiple power band classifiers were not found to be superior).

Supplementary information

Supplementary information.

Supplementary Methods, Tables 1 and 2 and References.

Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions.

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Oehrn, C.R., Cernera, S., Hammer, L.H. et al. Chronic adaptive deep brain stimulation versus conventional stimulation in Parkinson’s disease: a blinded randomized feasibility trial. Nat Med (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-024-03196-z

Download citation

Received : 04 January 2024

Accepted : 15 July 2024

Published : 19 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-024-03196-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.