Field-programmable gate array

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia It has been suggested that Partial re-configuration be merged into this article or section. (Discuss) Proposed since December 2011. "FPGA" redirects here. It is not to be confused with Flip-chip pin grid array.

An Altera Stratix IV GX FPGA

An example of a Xilinx Spartan 6 FPGA programming/evaluation board A field-programmable gate array (FPGA) is an integrated circuit designed to be configured by the customer or designer after manufacturinghence "field-programmable". The FPGA configuration is generally specified using a hardware description language (HDL), similar to that used for an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) (circuit diagrams were previously used to specify the configuration, as they were for ASICs, but this is increasingly rare). FPGAs can be used to implement any logical function that an ASIC could perform. The ability to update the functionality after shipping, partial re-configuration of the portion of the design[1] and the low non-recurring engineering costs relative to an ASIC design (notwithstanding the generally higher unit cost), offer advantages for many applications.[2] FPGAs contain programmable logic components called "logic blocks", and a hierarchy of reconfigurable interconnects that allow the blocks to be "wired together"somewhat like many (changeable) logic gates that can be inter-wired in (many) different configurations. Logic blocks can be configured to perform complex combinational functions, or merely

simple logic gates like AND and XOR. In most FPGAs, the logic blocks also include memory elements, which may be simple flip-flops or more complete blocks of memory.[2] In addition to digital functions, some FPGAs have analog features. The most common analog feature is programmable slew rate and drive strength on each output pin, allowing the engineer to set slow rates on lightly loaded pins that would otherwise ring unacceptably, and to set stronger, faster rates on heavily loaded pins on high-speed channels that would otherwise run too slow.[3][4] Another relatively common analog feature is differential comparators on input pins designed to be connected to differential signaling channels. A few "mixed signal FPGAs" have integrated peripheral Analog-to-Digital Converters (ADCs) and Digital-to-Analog Converters (DACs) with analog signal conditioning blocks allowing them to operate as a system-on-a-chip.[5] Such devices blur the line between an FPGA, which carries digital ones and zeros on its internal programmable interconnect fabric, and fieldprogrammable analog array (FPAA), which carries analog values on its internal programmable interconnect fabric.

Contents
[hide]

1 History

1.1 Modern developments 1.2 Gates 1.3 Market size 1.4 FPGA design starts 2.1 Complex programmable logic devices 2.2 Security considerations

2 FPGA comparisons

3 Applications 4 Architecture 5 FPGA design and programming 6 Basic process technology types 7 Major manufacturers 8 See also 9 References 10 Further reading 11 External links

[edit] History

The FPGA industry sprouted from programmable read-only memory (PROM) and programmable logic devices (PLDs). PROMs and PLDs both had the option of being programmed in batches in a factory or in the field (field programmable), however programmable logic was hard-wired between logic gates.[6] In the late 1980s the Naval Surface Warfare Department funded an experiment proposed by Steve Casselman to develop a computer that would implement 600,000 reprogrammable gates. Casselman was successful and a patent related to the system was issued in 1992.[6] Some of the industrys foundational concepts and technologies for programmable logic arrays, gates, and logic blocks are founded in patents awarded to David W. Page and LuVerne R. Peterson in 1985.[7][8] Xilinx Co-Founders, Ross Freeman and Bernard Vonderschmitt, invented the first commercially viable field programmable gate array in 1985 the XC2064.[9] The XC2064 had programmable gates and programmable interconnects between gates, the beginnings of a new technology and market.[10] The XC2064 boasted a mere 64 configurable logic blocks (CLBs), with two 3-input lookup tables (LUTs).[11] More than 20 years later, Freeman was entered into the National Inventors Hall of Fame for his invention.[12] Xilinx continued unchallenged and quickly growing from 1985 to the mid-1990s, when competitors sprouted up, eroding significant market-share. By 1993, Actel was serving about 18 percent of the market.[10] The 1990s were an explosive period of time for FPGAs, both in sophistication and the volume of production. In the early 1990s, FPGAs were primarily used in telecommunications and networking. By the end of the decade, FPGAs found their way into consumer, automotive, and industrial applications.[13] FPGAs got a glimpse of fame in 1997, when Adrian Thompson, a researcher working at the University of Sussex, merged genetic algorithm technology and FPGAs to create a sound recognition device. Thomsons algorithm configured an array of 10 x 10 cells in a Xilinx FPGA chip to discriminate between two tones, utilising analogue features of the digital chip. The application of genetic algorithms to the configuration of devices like FPGAs is now referred to as Evolvable hardware[6][14]

[edit] Modern developments

A recent trend has been to take the coarse-grained architectural approach a step further by combining the logic blocks and interconnects of traditional FPGAs with embedded microprocessors and related peripherals to form a complete "system on a programmable chip". This work mirrors the architecture by Ron Perlof and Hana Potash of Burroughs Advanced Systems Group which combined a reconfigurable CPU architecture on a single chip called the SB24. That work was done in 1982. Examples of such hybrid technologies

can be found in the Xilinx Virtex-II PRO and Virtex-4 devices, which include one or more PowerPC processors embedded within the FPGA's logic fabric. The Atmel FPSLIC is another such device, which uses an AVR processor in combination with Atmel's programmable logic architecture. The Actel SmartFusion devices incorporate an ARM architecture Cortex-M3 hard processor core (with up to 512kB of flash and 64kB of RAM) and analog peripherals such as a multi-channel ADC and DACs to their flash-based FPGA fabric. In 2010, an extensible processing platform was introduced for FPGAs that fused features of an ARM high-end microcontroller (hard-core implementations of a 32-bit processor,

memory, and I/O) with an FPGA fabric to make FPGAs easier for embedded designers to use. By incorporating the ARM processor-based platform into a 28 nm FPGA family, the extensible processing platform enables system architects and embedded software developers to apply a combination of serial and parallel processing to address the challenges they face in designing today's embedded systems, which must meet ever-growing demands to perform highly complex functions. By allowing them to design in a familiar ARM environment, embedded designers can benefit from the time-to-market advantages of an FPGA platform compared to more traditional design cycles associated with ASICs.[15][16][17][18][19] An alternate approach to using hard-macro processors is to make use of soft processor cores that are implemented within the FPGA logic. MicroBlaze and Nios II are examples of popular softcore processors. As previously mentioned, many modern FPGAs have the ability to be reprogrammed at "run time," and this is leading to the idea of reconfigurable computing or reconfigurable systems CPUs that reconfigure themselves to suit the task at hand. Additionally, new, non-FPGA architectures are beginning to emerge. Software-configurable microprocessors such as the Stretch S5000 adopt a hybrid approach by providing an array of processor cores and FPGA-like programmable cores on the same chip.

[edit] Gates

1987: 9,000 gates, Xilinx[10] 1992: 600,000, Naval Surface Warfare Department[6] Early 2000s: Millions [13] 1985: First commercial FPGA technology invented by Xilinx[10] 1987: $14 million[10] ~1993: >$385 million[10] 2005: $1.9 billion[20] 2010 estimates: $2.75 billion [20]

[edit] Market size

[edit] FPGA design starts

10,000[21] 2005: 80,000[22] 2008: 90,000[23]

[edit] FPGA comparisons

Historically, FPGAs have been slower, less energy efficient and generally achieved less functionality than their fixed ASIC counterparts. A study has shown that designs implemented on FPGAs need on average 18 times as much area, draw 7 times as much dynamic power, and are 3 times slower than the corresponding ASIC implementations.[24]

An Altera Cyclone II FPGA, on an Altera teraSIC DE1 Prototyping board. Advantages include the ability to re-program in the field to fix bugs, and may include a shorter time to market and lower non-recurring engineering costs.[citation needed] Vendors can also take a middle road by developing their hardware on ordinary FPGAs, but manufacture their final version so it can no longer be modified after the design has been committed. Xilinx claims that several market and technology dynamics are changing the ASIC/FPGA paradigm:[25]

Integrated circuit costs are rising aggressively ASIC complexity has lengthened development time R&D resources and headcount are decreasing Revenue losses for slow time-to-market are increasing Financial constraints in a poor economy are driving low-cost technologies

These trends make FPGAs a better alternative than ASICs for a larger number of highervolume applications than they have been historically used for, to which the company attributes the growing number of FPGA design starts (see History).[25] Some FPGAs have the capability of partial re-configuration that lets one portion of the device be re-programmed while other portions continue running.

[edit] Complex programmable logic devices

The primary differences between CPLDs (Complex Programmable Logic Devices) and FPGAs are architectural. A CPLD has a somewhat restrictive structure consisting of one or more programmable sum-of-products logic arrays feeding a relatively small number of clocked registers. The result of this is less flexibility, with the advantage of more predictable

timing delays and a higher logic-to-interconnect ratio. The FPGA architectures, on the other hand, are dominated by interconnect. This makes them far more flexible (in terms of the range of designs that are practical for implementation within them) but also far more complex to design for. In practice, the distinction between FPGAs and CPLDs is often one of size as FPGAs are usually much larger in terms of resources than CPLDs. Typically only FPGA's contain more advanced embedded functions such as adders, multipliers, memory, serdes and other hardened functions. Another common distinction is that CPLDs contain embedded flash to store their configuration while FPGAs usually, but not always, require an external flash

[edit] Security considerations

With respect to security, FPGAs have both advantages and disadvantages as compared to ASICs or secure microprocessors. FPGAs' flexibility makes malicious modifications during fabrication a lower risk.[26] For many FPGAs, the loaded design is exposed while it is loaded (typically on every power-on). To address this issue, some FPGAs support bitstream encryption.,[27][28] although in July 2011, researchers published papers highlighting vulnerabilities in the bitstream encryption of some devices related to the analysis of the device's power usage fluctuations.[29][30] These vulnerabilities apply to the current devices of most FPGA manufacturers[31], including Altera and Xilinx.

[edit] Applications
Applications of FPGAs include digital signal processing, software-defined radio, aerospace and defense systems, ASIC prototyping, medical imaging, computer vision, speech recognition, cryptography, bioinformatics, computer hardware emulation, radio astronomy, metal detection and a growing range of other areas. FPGAs originally began as competitors to CPLDs and competed in a similar space, that of glue logic for PCBs. As their size, capabilities, and speed increased, they began to take over larger and larger functions to the state where some are now marketed as full systems on chips (SoC). Particularly with the introduction of dedicated multipliers into FPGA architectures in the late 1990s, applications which had traditionally been the sole reserve of DSPs began to incorporate FPGAs instead.[32][33] Traditionally, FPGAs have been reserved for specific vertical applications where the volume of production is small. For these low-volume applications, the premium that companies pay in hardware costs per unit for a programmable chip is more affordable than the development resources spent on creating an ASIC for a low-volume application. Today, new cost and performance dynamics have broadened the range of viable applications.

[edit] Architecture
The most common FPGA architecture[34] consists of an array of logic blocks (called Configurable Logic Block, CLB, or Logic Array Block, LAB, depending on vendor), I/O

pads, and routing channels. Generally, all the routing channels have the same width (number of wires). Multiple I/O pads may fit into the height of one row or the width of one column in the array. An application circuit must be mapped into an FPGA with adequate resources. While the number of CLBs/LABs and I/Os required is easily determined from the design, the number of routing tracks needed may vary considerably even among designs with the same amount of logic. For example, a crossbar switch requires much more routing than a systolic array with the same gate count. Since unused routing tracks increase the cost (and decrease the performance) of the part without providing any benefit, FPGA manufacturers try to provide just enough tracks so that most designs that will fit in terms of Lookup tables (LUTs) and IOs can be routed. This is determined by estimates such as those derived from Rent's rule or by experiments with existing designs. In general, a logic block (CLB or LAB) consists of a few logical cells (called ALM, LE, Slice etc.). A typical cell consists of a 4-input LUT, a Full adder (FA) and a D-type flip-flop, as shown below. The LUTs are in this figure split into two 3-input LUTs. In normal mode those are combined into a 4-input LUT through the left mux. In arithmetic mode, their outputs are fed to the FA. The selection of mode is programmed into the middle multiplexer. The output can be either synchronous or asynchronous, depending on the programming of the mux to the right, in the figure example. In practice, entire or parts of the FA are put as functions into the LUTs in order to save space.[35][36][37]

Simplified example illustration of a logic cell ALMs and Slices usually contains 2 or 4 structures similar to the example figure, with some shared signals. CLBs/LABs typically contains a few ALMs/LEs/Slices. In recent years, manufacturers have started moving to 6-input LUTs in their high performance parts, claiming increased performance.[38] Since clock signals (and often other high-fanout signals) are normally routed via specialpurpose dedicated routing networks in commercial FPGAs, they and other signals are separately managed. For this example architecture, the locations of the FPGA logic block pins are shown below.

Logic Block Pin Locations

Each input is accessible from one side of the logic block, while the output pin can connect to routing wires in both the channel to the right and the channel below the logic block. Each logic block output pin can connect to any of the wiring segments in the channels adjacent to it. Similarly, an I/O pad can connect to any one of the wiring segments in the channel adjacent to it. For example, an I/O pad at the top of the chip can connect to any of the W wires (where W is the channel width) in the horizontal channel immediately below it. Generally, the FPGA routing is unsegmented. That is, each wiring segment spans only one logic block before it terminates in a switch box. By turning on some of the programmable switches within a switch box, longer paths can be constructed. For higher speed interconnect, some FPGA architectures use longer routing lines that span multiple logic blocks. Whenever a vertical and a horizontal channel intersect, there is a switch box. In this architecture, when a wire enters a switch box, there are three programmable switches that allow it to connect to three other wires in adjacent channel segments. The pattern, or topology, of switches used in this architecture is the planar or domain-based switch box topology. In this switch box topology, a wire in track number one connects only to wires in track number one in adjacent channel segments, wires in track number 2 connect only to other wires in track number 2 and so on. The figure below illustrates the connections in a switch box.

Switch box topology Modern FPGA families expand upon the above capabilities to include higher level functionality fixed into the silicon. Having these common functions embedded into the

silicon reduces the area required and gives those functions increased speed compared to building them from primitives. Examples of these include multipliers, generic DSP blocks, embedded processors, high speed IO logic and embedded memories. FPGAs are also widely used for systems validation including pre-silicon validation, postsilicon validation, and firmware development. This allows chip companies to validate their design before the chip is produced in the factory, reducing the time-to-market. To shrink the size and power consumption of FPGAs, vendors such as Tabula and Xilinx have introduced new 3D or stacked architectures.[39][40] Following the introduction of its 28 nm 7-series FPGAs, Xilinx revealed that that several of the highest-density parts in those FPGA product lines will be constructed using multiple dice in one package, employing technology developed for 3D construction and stacked-die assemblies. The technology stacks several (three or four) active FPGA dice side-by-side on a silicon interposer a single piece of silicon that carries passive interconnect.[40][41]

[edit] FPGA design and programming

To define the behavior of the FPGA, the user provides a hardware description language (HDL) or a schematic design. The HDL form is more suited to work with large structures because it's possible to just specify them numerically rather than having to draw every piece by hand. However, schematic entry can allow for easier visualisation of a design. Then, using an electronic design automation tool, a technology-mapped netlist is generated. The netlist can then be fitted to the actual FPGA architecture using a process called placeand-route, usually performed by the FPGA company's proprietary place-and-route software. The user will validate the map, place and route results via timing analysis, simulation, and other verification methodologies. Once the design and validation process is complete, the binary file generated (also using the FPGA company's proprietary software) is used to

(re)configure the FPGA. This file is transferred to the FPGA/CPLD via a serial interface (JTAG) or to an external memory device like an EEPROM. The most common HDLs are VHDL and Verilog, although in an attempt to reduce the complexity of designing in HDLs, which have been compared to the equivalent of assembly languages, there are moves to raise the abstraction level through the introduction of alternative languages. National Instrument's LabVIEW graphical programming language (sometimes referred to as "G") has an FPGA add-in module available to target and program FPGA hardware. To simplify the design of complex systems in FPGAs, there exist libraries of predefined complex functions and circuits that have been tested and optimized to speed up the design process. These predefined circuits are commonly called IP cores, and are available from FPGA vendors and third-party IP suppliers (rarely free, and typically released under proprietary licenses). Other predefined circuits are available from developer communities such as OpenCores (typically released under free and open source licenses such as the GPL, BSD or similar license), and other sources. In a typical design flow, an FPGA application developer will simulate the design at multiple stages throughout the design process. Initially the RTL description in VHDL or Verilog is simulated by creating test benches to simulate the system and observe results. Then, after the synthesis engine has mapped the design to a netlist, the netlist is translated to a gate level description where simulation is repeated to confirm the synthesis proceeded without errors. Finally the design is laid out in the FPGA at which point propagation delays can be added and the simulation run again with these values back-annotated onto the netlist.

Top of Form Bottom of Form

Formats:

Abstract | Full Text | PDF (150K)

Journal List > J Med Libr Assoc > v.92(3); Jul 2004

Performing your original search, result and discussion, in PubMed Central will retrieve 834131 records.

J Med Libr Assoc. 2004 July; 92(3):PMCID: Sollaci, L. 364371. PMC442179 Pereira, M. Copyright 2004, Medical Library Association The introduction, methods, results, and discussion PubMed related (IMRAD) structure: a fifty-year survey Luciana B. Sollaci, MS, Library Director1 and Mauricio G.articles Pereira, MD, DrPH, Professor of Epidemiology2,3 Adoption of structured 1 William Enneking Library Sarah Network of Hospitals abstracts by general Brasilia, Federal District 70335-901 Brazil medical journals and 2 University of Brasilia Department of Health Sciences format for a structured Brasilia, Federal District 70919-900 Brazil abstract. 3 Catholic University of BrasiliaFaculty of [J Med Libr Assoc. 2005] MedicineBrasilia, Federal District 71966-700Brazil Luciana B. Sollaci: luciana/at/bsb.sarah.br; Mauricio G. Basic structure and types Pereira: mpereira/at/unb.br of scientific papers. Received August 2003; Accepted January 2004. [Singapore Med J. 2008] This article has been corrected. See J Med Libr Assoc. Under-representation of 2004 October; 92(4): 506. developing countries in the research literature: ethical This article has been cited by other articles in PMC. issues arising from a survey of five leading OTHER SECTIONS medical journals. ABSTRACT [BMC Med Ethics. 2004] Background: The scientific article in the health sciences evolved from the letter form and purely descriptive style in Review Retraction policies the seventeenth century to a very standardized structure in of high-impact biomedical the twentieth century known as introduction, methods, journals. results, and discussion (IMRAD). The pace in which this [J Med Libr Assoc. 2004] structure began to be used and when it became the most Review Specification of used standard of today's scientific discourse in the health

sciences is not well established. laboratory animal use in Purpose: The purpose of this study is to point out the scientific articles: current period in time during which the IMRAD structure was low detail in the journals' definitively and widely adopted in medical scientific instructions for authors and writing. some proposals. Methods: In a cross-sectional study, the frequency of [Methods Find Exp Clin articles written under the IMRAD structure was measured Pharmacol. 2005] from 1935 to 1985 in a randomly selected sample of articles published in four leading journals in internal See reviews... | See medicine: the British Medical Journal, JAMA, The Lancet, all... and the New England Journal of Medicine. Clear Turn Off Results: The IMRAD structure, in those journals, began to The introduction, methods, be used in the 1940s. In the 1970s, it reached 80% and, in results, and discussion the 1980s, was the only pattern adopted in original papers. (IMRAD) structure: a Conclusions: Although recommended since the beginning fifty-year survey of the twentieth century, the IMRAD structure was adopted as a majority only in the 1970s. The influence of PubMed other disciplines and the recommendations of editors are among the facts that contributed to authors adhering to it.

OTHER SECTIONS

Since its origin in 1665, the scientific paper has been through many changes. Although during the first two centuries its form and style were not standardized, the letter form and the experimental report coexisted. The letter was usually single authored, written in a polite style, and addressed several subjects at the same time [1]. The experimental report was purely descriptive, and events were often presented in chronological order. It evolved to a more structured form in which methods and results were incipiently described and interpreted, while the letter form disappeared [2]. Method description increasingly developed during the second half of the nineteenth century [3], and an overall organization known as theory experimentdiscussion appeared [4, 5]. In the early twentieth century, contemporary norms began to be standardized with a decreasing use of the literary style. Gradually, in the course of the twentieth century, the formal established introduction, methods, results, and discussion (IMRAD) structure was adopted [6]. However, neither the rate at which the use of this format increased nor the point at which it became the standard for today's medical scientific writing is well established. The main objective of this investigation is to discover when this format was definitively adopted. Also, to have a global idea of the articles published during the studied period, articles written without the IMRAD structure will be briefly described.

OTHER SECTIONS

METHODS

In a cross-sectional study, the frequency of articles using the IMRAD structure was measured at 5-year intervals, during the 50-year period from 1935 to 1985. Data collection began at 1960, moving forward and backward from that year until the frequency of IMRAD articles reached 100% and none respectively. A sample of 1 in every 10 issues of 4 leading medical journals in internal medicine was systematically selected to evaluate the articles published in these years. A total of 1,297 original articlesall those from each selected issuewere examined: 341 from the British Medical Journal, 328 from Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), 401 from The Lancet, and 227 from the New England Journal of Medicine. These journals were chosen based on their similarities in target audience, frequency, and lifespan. The journals had to be currently published at the beginning of the 20th century and show no interruptions during the studied period. The criteria used by the journal for an original article were accepted. Therefore, if an article was labeled original by the journal, it was regarded as such, even though nowadays it might not be considered so. An article was considered to be written using the IMRAD structure only when the headings methods, results, and discussion, or synonyms for these headings, were all included and clearly printed. The introduction section had to be present but not necessarily accompanied by a heading. Articles that did not follow this structure were considered non-IMRAD. They could be generally grouped as: (1) continuous text, (2) articles that used headings other than the IMRAD, (3) case reports, and (4) articles that partially adopted the IMRAD structure. One of the authors (Sollaci) collected the data. In a randomly selected subsample of forty-eight articles, the data collection was independently repeated after six months. A high agreement was found (Kappa = 0.95; CI 95%:0.88; 1.0).

OTHER SECTIONS

RESULTS The frequency of articles written using the IMRAD structure increased over time. In 1935, no IMRAD article could be found. In 1950, the proportion of articles presented in this modern form surpassed 10% in all journals. Thereafter, a pronounced increase can be observed until the 1970s, when it reached over 80%. During the first 20 years, from 1935 to 1955, the pace of IMRAD increments was slow, from none to 20%. However, during the following 20 years, 1955 to 1975, the frequency of these articles more than quadrupled (Figure 1). Figure 1

Proportion of introduction, methods, results, and discussion (IMRAD) adoption in articles published in the British Medical Journal, JAMA, The Lancet, and the New England Journal of Medicine, 19351985 (n = 1,297) All four journals presented a similar trend: the New England Journal of Medicine fully adopted the structure in 1975, followed by the British Medical Journal in 1980, and JAMA and The Lancet in 1985. Regarding the non-IMRAD articles, the evolution and variations of text organization for all journals can be delineated. In the British Medical Journal and The Lancet, articles that used non-IMRAD headings prevailed from 1935 to 1945. A shift to articles that partially adopted the IMRAD structure occurred from 1950 to 1960. From 1965 and beyond, the full structure tends to predominate. Until 1960, texts with different headings and partial IMRAD headings shared the lead in JAMA. From 1965 onward, the complete format is the most used. The New England Journal of Medicine had a slightly different pattern. Until 1955, continuous text, non-IMRAD headings, and case reports predominated. After 1960, the IMRAD structure takes the lead. As an example, Figure 2 shows the text organization in the British Medical Journal from 1935 to 1985. The ascending curve represents the IMRAD articles. It is the same as shown in Figure 1, and the descending curves represent all other forms of text organization. A similar tendency was observed for The Lancet, JAMA, and the New England Journal of Medicine. Figure 2 Text organization of published articles in the British Medical Journal from 1935 to 1985 (n = 341) One interesting finding is that during the initial period of our study, the order of the IMRAD headings did not follow today's convention; results could be presented before methods or discussion before results, and, although a few articles followed the IMRAD structure in the 1940s, they were not the same as articles written with the IMRAD structure in the 1980s. Information, which today is highly standardized in one section, would be absent, repeated, or dispersed among sections in earlier articles.

OTHER SECTIONS

DISCUSSION Gradually and progressively, the IMRAD structure was adopted by the studied journals. Until 1945, articles were organized in a manner more similar to a book chapter,

mainly with headings associated with the subject, and did not follow the IMRAD structure. From 1950 to 1960, the IMRAD structure was partially adopted, and, after 1965, it began to predominate, attaining absolute leadership in the 1980s. The authors did not find definite reasons explaining the leadership of the IMRAD structure in the literature. It is possible that sciences other than medicine might have influenced the growing use of this structure. The field of physics, for example, had already adopted it extensively in the 1950s [7]. This structure was already considered the ideal outline for scientific writing in the first quarter of the 20th century [8, 9]; however, it was not used by authors [10]. After World War II, international conferences on scientific publishing recommended this format [11], culminating with the guidelines set by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, formerly known as the Vancouver Group, first published in the late 1970s [12]. According to Huth [13], the wide use of the IMRAD structure may be largely credited to editors, who insisted on papers being clearly formatted to benefit readers and to facilitate the process of peer review. According to Meadows [14], development and changes in the internal organization of the scientific article is simply an answer to the constant growth of information. The IMRAD structure facilitates modular reading, because readers usually do not read in a linear way but browse in each section of the article, looking for specific information, which is normally found in preestablished areas of the paper [15]. Four major leading journals of internal medicine were examined. It might be assumed that patterns set by these journals would be followed by others; nevertheless, caution should be taken in extrapolating these findings to other journals.

OTHER SECTIONS

REFERENCES
1. Kronick D. A history of scientific and technical

periodicals: the origins and development of the scientific and technical press 16651790. 2nd ed. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow, 1976.
2. Atkinson D. Scientific discourse in sociohistorical

context: the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 16751975. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1999. 3. Day RA. How to write & publish a scientific paper. 5th ed. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx, 1998.
4. Atkinson D. Scientific discourse in sociohistorical

context: the Philosophical Transactions of the

Royal Society of London, 16751975. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1999. 5. Atkinson D. The evolution of medical research writing from 1735 to 1985: the case of the Edinburgh Medical Journal. Applied Linguistics. 1992. Dec; 13(4):33774.
6. Huth EJ. Structured abstracts for papers reporting

clinical trials. Ann Internal Apr; 106(4):6267. [PubMed]

7. Bazerman

Med.

1987.

C.. Modern evolution of the experimental report in physics: spectroscopic articles in Physical Review, 18931980. Social Studies of Science. 1984;14:16396. Philadelphia, PA: WB Saunders, 1922.

8. Melish-Wilson MH. The writing of medical papers. 9. Trelease SF, Yule ES. Preparation of scientific and

technical papers. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins, 1925. 10. Council of Biology Editors Style Manual Committee. Scientific style and format: the CBE manual for authors, editors and publishers. 6th ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
11. Vickery

B.. The Royal Society Scientific Conference of 1948. J Documentation. 1992;54(3):2813. Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. Ann Internal Med. 1997. Jan 1; 126(1):3647. [PubMed] clinical trials. Ann Internal Apr; 106(4):6267. [PubMed] Med. 1987.

12. International

13. Huth EJ. Structured abstracts for papers reporting

14. Meadows AJ. Communicating research. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 1998.
15. Meadows

AJ.. The scientific paper as an archaeological artifact. J Inf Science. 1985;11(1):2730.

Articles from Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA are provided here courtesy of Medical Library Association

Structured abstracts for papers reporting clinical trials. [Ann Intern Med. 1987] Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. [Ann Intern Med. 1997] Structured abstracts for papers reporting clinical trials. [Ann Intern Med. 1987]

You are here: NCBI > Literature > PubMed Central Write to the Help Desk

Simple NCBI Directory

Getting Started

NCBI Education NCBI Help Manual NCBI Handbook Training & Tutorials Chemicals & Bioassays Data & Software DNA & RNA Domains & Structures Genes & Expression Genetics & Medicine Genomes & Maps Homology Literature Proteins Sequence Analysis Taxonomy Training & Tutorials Variation PubMed Nucleotide BLAST PubMed Central Gene Bookshelf Protein OMIM Genome SNP Structure GenBank

Resources

Popular

Featured

Reference Sequences Map Viewer Genome Projects Human Genome Mouse Genome Influenza Virus Primer-BLAST Sequence Read Archive About NCBI Research at NCBI NCBI Newsletter NCBI FTP Site NCBI on Facebook NCBI on Twitter NCBI on YouTube

NCBI Information

NLM NIH DHHS USA.gov Copyright | Disclaimer | Privacy | Accessibility | Contact National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike, Bethesda MD, 20894 USA

How to write the Results and Discussion Michael P. Dosch CRNA MS University of Detroit Mercy Graduate Program in Nurse Anesthesiology This page is http://www.udmercy.edu/crna/agm/htresult.htm.

How to write the results and discussion

Michael P. Dosch CRNA MS June 2009

Results

Be happy! Youre getting there. Just a small amount of writing to go from this point. The results and discussion are (relatively) cut and dried. But be sure to run them by all committee members and your program director before publishing or creating the poster, to make sure you havent overlooked anything. And make sure they are congruent with your research purpose, objectives, hypothesis, and methods.

"Whos in, whos out"

Shows informed consent, and that exclusions were not arbitrary After institutional review board approval and written informed consent were obtained, 100 subjects were recruited for the study. These were randomly assigned into two groups with the aid of a computer-generated table of random numbers. Of this group, six were excluded. Two were lost to follow up (one died on the second postoperative day from causes unrelated to the protocol, and one could not be reached by phone), and four had their anesthetic plan changed so that the protocol could not be performed (one had their surgery cancelled, three had spinal anesthesia). The characteristics of the remaining 94 are shown in Table 1. Table 2 shows... Table 3 shows...

Here's a sample "Table 1": Table 1 Characteristics of the sample

Control n = 45 Heat moisture exchanger n = 49 36.3 + 2.7 1.67 + 0.8 72.3 + 16.2 & Probability

Variable

Age years1 Height m1 Weight kg1 Gender males)2 (number of

32.7 + 3.5 1.72 + 0.6 76.6 + 12.8

.08 NS NS

21

26

NS

ASA Physical Status3 OR room temperature (C)1

2+1

2+1

NS

21.1 + 3.6

20.6 + 2.9

NS

Notes:
1. Data is expressed as mean + one standard deviation. Probability determined using a two-tailed, unpaired Students t test. 2. Data is expressed as number within the sample who possess the characteristic. Probability determined using Chi square (or Fishers Exact test for 2 x 2 tables).

3. Data is expressed as median + one interquartile range. Probability determined using a Mann- Whitney U test.

Why is Table 1 in most studies?

Shows that demographic and prognostic variables were evenly balanced in the process of random allocation of subjects to experimental and control groups.

Components of Results section

Results should answer main hypothesis or research question(s)
Order of presenting results is arbitrary May be done in Table 1 in less-complicated studies; or be set apart to emphasize its importance. Results that are "sidelights" should not receive equal weight When presenting the results for the main hypotheses, consider: Clear, concise, simple Is enough detail presented to allow the reader to determine whether the effect of the experimental treatment (vs. chance alone, not bias or sloppy technique) produced the significant statistical value? Were adverse effects reported?

Do not state any differences were present between groups unless a significant P value is attached. State "Cardiac output was less in the beans-and-franks group (P = .03). See Table 2." NOT "There was a significance between the beans-andfranks (B&F) group and the corn dog group. See Table 2." You may note trends if you like (.05 < P <.10). Dont comment on results. Dont attach equal importance (or even bother to include) the entire statistical output. You select those descriptive and inferential statistics you wish to use, and place them in the order that seems reasonable to you.

Tables and Graphs

Presentation
Tables and graphs must stand alone (Can a member of your department unfamiliar with the study pick up your graph and explain its meaning to you?) Text should highlight the importance or meaning of the figures and tables, not repeat the data contained within them. Tables and graphs both carry a necessary part of the message- use both Do the numbers add up? Are baseline values for the groups similar? Is the degree of variability reported (and whether it is an SD or SEM identified)? Are tables and graphs clearly labeled and appropriately scaled? Are the results of statistical analysis presented?

Can one determine what statistical test produced the result? To compare proportions and relative amounts (How big?), use a pie chart, a horizontal bar chart, or a table To show trends (How do things change over time?), use a column chart or line graph To show whats typical vs. exceptional (particularly how two groups compare in some dimension or variable), use a histogram, a cumulative percentage chart, or a box plot. To show correlations (how well does one thing predict another?), use a scatterplot or multiplot chart.

Choosing graph types

Discussion
Presentation
Dont repeat results Order simple to complex (building to conclusion); or may state conclusion first Conclusion should be consistent with study objectives/research question. Explain how the results answer the question under study Emphasize what is new, different, or important about your results Consider alternative explanations for the results Limit speculation Avoid biased language or biased citation of previous work Dont confuse non-significance (large P) with "no difference" especially with small sample sizes Dont confuse statistical significance with clinical importance Never give incidental observations the weight you attach to conclusions based on hypotheses generated before the study began

Components of the Discussion section

Look back Answer whether the results make sense in terms of your expectation as expressed in the hypothesis? what you read before beginning (texts & research articles)? clinical practice? theoretical considerations?

If your results agree with previous work, fine. If they do not, explain why not, or you may leave it unresolved "We cannot account for the difference seen in..." Were there limitations (sample size of course but what else)? Were there any problems with carrying out the method as originally planned? Not enough men in the study? Unanticipated amounts of side effects or pain? Low response rate? Failure to look at a crucial time interval? Any unsettled points in results?

Look forward Implications for patient care, or for theory Suggestions for future research ("If I had to do it over I would..."). Be specific.

Conclusion Beware inappropriate conclusions (beyond the range of the data, beyond the design of the study)

Abstract
Length 250 words Contains all sections of paper Introduction with clinical importance and a key reference or two Methods in pertinent detail Results of testing the main hypothesis and most significant other results only Discussion a sentence or two on main implications or conclusion (See current abstracts in Anesth Analg or

Structured abstracts Anesthesiology)?

Include numbers for the main hypothesis (with descriptive statistics for central tendency & variability) so that readers will have a sense of the size of the treatment effect, and later researchers will have a basis for power and sample size calculations

Here's a sample Abstract. Is ondansetron as effective as droperidol in prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting? Pamela J. Mencken RN BSN, Debra J. Blalock RN BSN, Wayne R. Miller PharmD, Michael P. Davis CRNA MS, Peter D. Hamm CRNA MS The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) remains 20 to 30% despite the availability of newer antiemetics such as ondansetron and other 5-HT3 antagonists. The cost of these drugs often results in the use of less expensive antiemetics such as droperidol. Common practice is to treat nausea and vomiting only after it has occurred. The few studies which have examined prophylaxis of PONV have had small sample sizes (Grond et al. Anesth Analg 1995; 81:603-7). The purpose of this study was to determine if there was a difference between ondansetron and droperidol in preventing PONV. After institutional review board approval and with written informed consent, a controlled, double-blinded study was conducted with 105 male and female patients, ASA status I to III, randomly assigned into 2 groups with the aid of a computer-generated table of random numbers. All patients underwent elective intra abdominal procedures. Exclusion criteria included weight exceeding body mass index of 30 kg/m2, nasogastric tube prior to induction, history of motion sickness or postoperative nausea and vomiting, antiemetic use within 24 hours of surgery, pregnancy, and subjects with contraindications to either study drug. All patients received a standardized induction with d-tubocurarine, succinylcholine, thiopental sodium, and fentanyl (2 to 20 mcg/kg). Anesthesia was maintained with isoflurane or desflurane in oxygen. Five minutes prior to induction of general anesthesia,

patients received either ondansetron 4 mg intravenously (IV), or droperidol 1.25 mg IV. Syringes of identical appearence containing either agent were prepared by the satellite pharmacist, who alone was aware of group assignment. All data was collected by the principal investigators in a blinded fashion, rating PONV using a visual analogue scale of 0 to 10. Five patients were eliminated from the study; 1 was lost to follow up, 2 patients exceeded the surgical time limit of 4 hours, 1 patient did not receive general anesthesia, and 1 patient did not receive the general anesthesia protocol as described. The groups did not differ significantly in age, weight, height, ASA status, or doses of intraoperative drugs. Patients in the droperidol group showed a trend (P=.078) toward less PONV (0.37 0.038; mean one standard deviation) than the ondansetron group (1.0 2.362). The patients who received droperidol had a trend towards a higher incidence of post discharge antiemetic use than the patients in the ondansetron group (P=0.091). Patients in the droperidol group did not spend a longer time in PACU (87 62 min) as compared to the ondansetron group (102 62 min; P=.443). Pretreatment with droperidol resulted in an overall 11.8% incidence of PONV, compared to 26.5% incidence in the ondansetron group (P=.07). In conclusion, pretreatment with droperidol reduced the incidence of PONV in this sample, and patients did not stay longer in the PACU with the droperidol treatment. Further study is needed to determine if a combination of droperidol and ondansetron would decrease PONV more effectively than either agent used alone.

Miscellaneous
Report off closure to IRBs Format is important- follow AMA! Posters

Reading list
1. Cuddy PG, Elenbaas RM, Elenbaas JK. Evaluating the medical literature Part I: Abstract, Introduction, Methods. Ann Emerg Med 1983;12:549-55. 2. Tornquist E. The nuts and bolts of publishing your research. CRNA Forum 1993;9(2):3-18. 3. Nagelhout J. Writing for publication. Presentation at AANA Assembly of School Faculty, Feb 21, 1992. 4. Elenbaas JK, Cuddy PG, Elenbaas RM. Evaluating the medical literature Part III: Results and discussion. Ann Emerg Med 1983;12:679-86. 5. Eger EI. A template for writing a scientific paper. Anesth Analg 1990;70:91-6. 6. Scoville R. Ten graphs (and how to use them). PC World 1988 Sep:216-9. 7. Johnson SH. Avoiding the "school paper style" rejection. Nurse Anesthesia 1993;4(3):130-5. 8. Elenbaas RM, Elenbaas JK, Cuddy PG. Evaluating the medical literature Part II: Statistical analysis. Ann Emerg Med 1983;12:610-20. 9. Burns N, Grove SK. The Practice of Nursing Research: Conduct, Critique, and Utilization. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 1993; Chapter 22 Interpreting research outcomes (p. 603-14), Chapter 23 Communicating research findings (p. 615-46).

Questions? Return to Anesthesia Course Notes Site at UDM.

Results Section The results section is where you tell the reader the basic descriptive information about the scales you used (report the mean and standard deviation for each scale). If you have more than 3 or 4 variables in your paper, you might want to put this descriptive information in a table to keep the text from being too choppy and bogged down (see the APA manual for ideas on creating good tables). In the results section, you also tell the reader what statistics you conducted to test your hypothesis (-ses) and what the results indicated. In this paper, you conducted bivariate correlation(s) to test your hypothesis. Include in Results (include the following in this order in your results section):
Give

the descriptive statistics for the relevant variables (mean, standard

deviation).
Provide

a brief rephrasing of your hypothesis(es) (avoid exact restatement). Then tell the reader what statistical test you used to test your hypothesis and what you found.
Explain

which correlations were in the predicted direction, and which were not (if any). Were differences statistically significant (i.e., p < .05 or below)? Don't merely give the statistics without any explanation. Whenever you make a claim that there is (or is not) a significant correlation between X and Y, the reader has to be able to verify it by looking at the appropriate test statistic. For example do not report The correlation between private self-consciousness and college adjustment was r = - .26, p < .01. In general, you should not use numbers as part of a sentence in this way. Instead, interpret important data for the reader and use words throughout your sentences: The negative correlation between private self-consciousness and college adjustment indicated that the more participants felt self-conscious, the worse their adjustment to college, r = - .26, p < .01
However, Note:

don't try to interpret why you got the results you did. Leave that to the Discussion. Be sure to underline all abbreviations of test statistics (e.g., M for mean and SD for standard deviation). See pages 112-118 of the APA manual for more on reporting statistics in text.

Some specifics: For each correlation, you need to report the following information either in the text of your paper or in a table: correlation coefficient, significance level (p value). If you are reporting a single correlation for the whole results section, report it in the text of the paper as follows: r =.26, p < .01 or r = -.11, n.s.
Note:
Use n.s. if not significant; or use whichever of the following is most accurate:

p < .05; p < .01; p < .001

If your correlation was non significant, but p < .10 you can still talk about it. You

might put the following text in your paper: While the correlation was not significant relative to the standard alpha level of .05, the p-value was less than .10. Then provide a rationale for why you should still be able to discuss this non-significant correlation (see your hypothesis testing lecture notes). You may then cautiously interpret such a correlation. Dont make grand conclusions or use strong language based on the existence of a marginally significant finding. Also, you should indicate that a marginal correlation is nonsignificant in a table; only refer to the correlation as approaching significance in the text of the paper.

If you computed two or more correlations (thus involving at least three variables) provide a table at the end of the paper (ordinarily tables would only be used for even more complex findings, but I'd like you to practice since you have a few correlations to work with). Create a correlation matrix like the example (see Table 1). If you include a correlation matrix table, you should, in the text of the result section, refer readers to your table instead of typing out the r and the p value for each correlation. If you are using Word as your word processor, create the table, then you can adjust the "borders and shading" for each cell/row/column to get the table formatted properly. I can show you how if you have trouble. Other word processors should have similar functions. Table 1 This Table is an Example of a Correlation Matrix among Three Variables for an Imaginary Sample of College Students (n = 129). Variable 1. variable 2. name of next var. 3. name of 3rd var. * p < .05; **p < .01 ---.44* name 1 of --2 .56** 3 -.29*

================================================================== === You need to report the statistics in some way in your result section, but regardless of whether you use a table or type the statistics in the text, you should also interpret the correlation for the reader say exactly what that means: E.g. As expected, college adjustment was positively correlated with the amount of contact with friends and family members (see Table 1). E.g. No significant relationship was found between the importance of one's social life and social adjustment to college, r = -.11, n.s. E.g. As shown in Table 1, some of my predictions were supported. There was a significant correlation between extroversion and life satisfaction. However, life satisfaction was not significantly related to college adjustment.

See your text, APA manual, and Sample Paper (The Title of the Paper) for more information and suggestions. In general, I would suggest writing the words of the results section first, and then going back to insert the numbers and statistical information.

Discussion section In your discussion section, relate the results back to your initial hypotheses. Do they support or disconfirm them? Remember: Results do not prove hypotheses right or wrong, they support them or fail to provide support for them. I suggest the following information in the following order:
Provide a very brief summary of the most important parts of the introduction and then the results sections. In doing so, you should relate the results to the theories you introduced in the Introduction. Your findings are just one piece among many -- resist the tendency to make your results the final story about the phenomenon or theory of interest. Integrate the results and try to make sense of the pattern of the findings. In the case of a correlational project, be careful to not use causal language to discuss your results unless you did an experiment you cannot infer causality. However, it would be impossible to fully discuss the implications of your results without making reference to causality. That is fine. Just don't claim that your results themselves are demonstrating causality.

your findings did not support your hypotheses, speculate why that might be so. You might reconsider the logic of your hypotheses. Or, reconsider whether the variables are adequately measuring the relationship. For example, if you hypothesized a relationship between anger toward the stigmatized and narcissism and didnt find it consider whether anger is really the right variable... perhaps "disgust" would better capture the relationship. Alternatively, you might also consider whether the relationship you hypothesized might only show up in certain populations of people or under certain conditions (e.g., self-threat). Where possible, support your speculation with references. about any qualifications important to your findings (all studies have weaknesses/qualifications). This includes alternative explanations for the results. For example, you might speculate about an unexamined third variable that was not present in you study. However, BE SPECIFIC and back up any assertions you make. For example, if you claim that 3rd variables might affect your correlations, tell me what they are and how they would affect your correlations. about future directions that research could take to further investigate your question. This might relate back to any weaknesses youve mentioned above (or reasons why the results didnt turn out as expected). Future directions may also include interesting next steps in the research.
A discussion section is about what we have learned so far; and where we should go next; Your final conclusion should talk briefly about the broader Speculate Talk

If

significance of your findings. What do they imply about human nature or some aspect of it? (Don't wildly speculate, however!) Leave the reader feeling like this is an important topic... you will likely refer back to your opening paragraph of the introduction here and have partial answers or more specific responses to the questions you posed.

Important Parts of the Paper Dont Forget Them!! Title page - Try to write a title that maximally informs the reader about the topic, without being ridiculously long. Use titles of articles you've read as examples of form. Also provide the RUNNING HEAD and an abbreviated title that appears in the header of each page along with the page number. Provide your name and institutional affiliation (Hanover College). See APA Manual and sample paper. Abstract - Write the abstract LAST. An abstract is a super-short summary and is difficult to write. Info on abstracts from APA manual: An abstract is a brief, comprehensive summary of the contents of an article, allowing readers to survey the contents quickly. A good abstract is:
accurate:

Ensure that your abstract correctly reflects the purpose and content of your paper. Do not include information that does not appear in the body of the paper. Define all abbreviations and acronyms. Spell out names of tests/ questionnaires. Define unique terms. Paraphrase rather than quote. and specific: Make each sentence maximally informative, especially the lead sentence. Begin the abstract with the most important information (your question), but do not repeat the title. Be as brief as possible. rather than evaluate: do not add to or comment on what is in the body of the manuscript. and readable: Write in clear and vigorous prose. Use the third person rather than the first person.

self-contained: concise

non-evaluative: Report coherent

In less than 150 words your abstract should describe:

the

problem under investigation (an "introduction" type sentence)

the specific variables investigated and the method of doing so (a "method" type sentence) the a

results of the study in brief (no numbers, just words)

hint about the general direction the discussion section takes

References: Use APA style. See your APA manual, textbook and the sample paper for examples of how to cite and how to make a reference list. Make sure that all references mentioned in the text are also mentioned in the reference list and vice versa.

Tables and/or Figures: Use APA style. Tables go at the very end of your paper. Make sure you refer to the table or figure in the text of your paper.

*See APA Manual, textbook and sample paper for information on how to format each section of your paper and how to order the sections.

NASA TM-105419

Chapter 5Results and Discussion

The presentation and discussion of the results is the heart of the technical report. Many readers, of course, are interested only in obtaining the quick review of the work afforded by the Summary and the concluding section. But readers who have reason to study the entire text of a report will normally spend most of their time on the Results and Discussion section. The first purpose of this section is a well-organized and objective presentation of the results. Tables and figures that show the results should have sufficient supporting description to permit the reader to interpret them quickly and accurately. But do not repeat in words what is already apparent from examination of the tables and figures. The second purpose of this section is a discussion of the results, together with their analysis, to show that the conclusions are warranted. Each major conclusion should be clearly explained and compared with the results of similar work by other investigators. This chapter describes the mechanics for achieving these purposes. The organization, the methods of presentation, and the discussion of results are described. Several examples illustrate the principles involved.

Organization of Section
The Results and Discussion section should present the data as concisely and clearly as possible. To achieve this goal, prepare a good outline of this section before starting to write. Conventionally, an introductory statement is used to remind readers of the type of tests conducted and the scope of the investigation. Any other statements necessary for correctly interpreting the results should be made in this introductory paragraph. An important decision is whether to present this material as a single section or as two separate sections, one entitled "Results" and the other "Discussion." Regardless of the length of the report, a single section combining the results and their discussion is usually preferable because this scheme is clearer and less repetitious. Separate sections may sometimes be desirable:
1. When heterogeneous data must be considered in making a point in the discussion

For example, the use of separate sections may be better when reporting test data on several materials to determine which is best for a particular application. In this case the test results for each material would be presented in the Results section. The Discussion section would then be used to compare the properties of the various materials, to review their advantages and disadvantages for the application being considered, and finally to select the best material.
1. When a large number of similar curves must be compared on a single figure

If your data fall too close together to be presented on a single plot, you can present the original data in separate figures and later combine only the faired curves (using different types of lines) from these figures on a single figure for comparison and discussion. The report may well be written with these two sections separated. A lengthy presentation of results about which there is little or no discussion is best made in an appendix. Then only the comparison figure need be shown in the Results and Discussion section, with reference made to the appendix. If this section is longer than approximately one page, use the pertinent subheadings determined during your preliminary outlining. Perhaps the most frequently used type of outline groups similar data. Another type of outline groups the data obtained with each of several systems being compared. Avoid promises of NASA research to be published and references to work in progress. Such suggestions in no way enhance the value of the report and might stimulate inquiries that could prove embarrassing if redirection of a worker's activities leaves such promises unfulfilled. If results indicate the need for further research, a simple statement to this effect should suffice.

Presentation of Results
Data should be presented as clearly and simply as possible. Although you are familiar with the work, others are not. Avoid taking too much for granted; avoid complicated correlations; avoid making the presentation too long and too involved with insignificant details. First present the data in a simple, readily understood form. Then if necessary, give complicated comparison figures or correlation curves that make sense only to those fully familiar with the field. In preparing the figures and tables take care to put them in acceptable form. Including a summary data table is sometimes desirable. The table should include the data necessary for your readers to evaluate the accuracy of your plots and correlations. Additional data may be included to enable them to devise additional plots and correlations. For the sake

of brevity present only the most important data in the summary table. But if calculated data are very important and are widely used in the report, include them in the summary data table even though the reader could obtain these values by independent calculations.

Discussion of Results
The discussion of the results is one of the most important parts of a technical report. To discuss the results adequately, you must clearly understand their significance. This requires that you have mastery of the theory pertaining to your field and broad knowledge of the information already available from work in this and allied fields. The discussion must clearly point out the exact contribution made to the existing fund of knowledge by the new data. If the results have an immediate application, point this out. If possible, give an example to illustrate the method of application. Clearly state any significant conclusions and either prove or properly qualify them. But discuss the results; do not merely recapitulate them. The major results and the conclusions, normally stated in both the Summary and the concluding section, must be clearly established here. Any new or unusual result should be explained. If you do not understand the phenomenon or if the data are too limited to permit rigorous analysis, it is sometimes worthwhile to present a speculative discussion outlining several possible causes. Alert your readers that such a discussion is speculative. The discussion of the results sometimes includes the method of computation or derivation, normally presented in the Analysis or Procedure sections. Such situations may arise when one figure is derived from preceding figures. If the method is involved, include a complete example as an appendix and indicate only the main steps here. Again, judgment must be exercised to achieve the desired result. Essential information must not be kept from the reader. But trivial details must be subordinated by placing them in an appendix to avoid diluting the text and obscuring the important facts. End the discussion with a short summary explaining the significance of your work. "When you describe the meaning of your little bit of truth, do it simply. I believe that the simplest statements evoke the most wisdom; verbose language and fancy technical words are used to convey shallow thought" (ref. 2). Questions on policies and procedures should be directed to Natalie Henrich, (216) 433-5301. Skip Navigational Links

Chapter 4Experiment and Analysis Descriptions Chapter 6Concluding and Supporting Sections
Chapter Descriptions Editorial help with your technical report FAQPublishing Your Technical Report at the NASA Glenn Research Center Reports Publication GRC-P 3.7.4 (Center Procedure for Glenn's Business Management System) Hone your writing skills with our serial online articles Word of the Week and Word Wizards

Scientific and Technical Information Program From computers in the grc.nasa.gov domain, go to http://ltid.grc.nasa.gov to find out more about the Logistics and Technical Information Division. (Note that this is not meant to be an active link.) Skip Navigational Links

[Privacy Policy and Important Notices] Responsible NASA Official: Natalie L. Henrich, Glenn Technical Publications Manager Web Curator: Caroline A. Rist (Wyle) Last updated: 4/22/2011 This server now includes some full documents in portable document format (PDF). These files, can be viewed with Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is incorporated in some Web browsers. If Acrobat Reader is not included in your browser, you can download the current version of this software free and use it as a standalone program to view pdf files.