Skip to main content

Results section example with explanations

3. Results

3.1. Comparison of Serum MIP-1α Levels between the Case and the Control Groups

The serum MIP-1α level was significantly higher in the case group than that in the control group (P < 0.05) as shown in Figure 1; high-level group (≥2.14 pg/mL, 32 cases) and low-level group (< 2.14 pg/mL, 32 cases).

[Figure 1] Comparison of serum MIP-1α levels.

3.2. Comparison of Clinical Data of the Case Group

The differences in age, sex, cardiac function classification, atrial fibrillation course, and type of atrial fibrillation were not statistically significant between the high-level and low-level groups (P > 0.05) as shown in Table 1.

[Table 1] Comparison of clinical data of the case group.

3.3. Comparison of Left Atrial Remodeling Indexes between the Low-Level and High-Level Groups

Significant differences in the anteroposterior diameter, upper and lower diameter, left and right diameter of the left atrium, left atrial volume, volume index, left atrial global ejection fraction, and sphericity were detected between the low-level and high-level groups (P < 0.05) as shown in Table 2.

[Table 2]. Comparison of left atrial remodeling indexes in the case group.

3.4. Correlation between the Serum MIP-1α Level and Left Atrial Remodeling Risk in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation

The Pearson correlation analysis results showed that serum MIP-1α level was positively correlated with the left atrial anteroposterior diameter (r = 0.745), left and right diameter (r = 0.759), left atrial upper and lower diameter (r = 0.810), left atrial volume (r = 0.837), left atrial volume index (r = 0.813), and left atrial sphericity (r = 0.785) but negatively correlated with the left atrial global ejection fraction (r = -0.731; ) as shown in Figure 2.

[Figure 2] Heatmap of the correlation between serum MIP-1α levels and the risk of left atrial remodeling in patients with atrial fibrillation.

Explanation

  • Note that the section is divided into four numbered subsections, each focusing on a different research question (e.g. ‘3.2. Comparison of Clinical Data of the Case Group’). By clearly signposting what each paragraph relates to, the authors make it easier for readers to process the findings.
  • The authors report statistical findings in an objective and concise way (e.g. ‘The serum MIP-1α level was significantly higher in the case group than that in the control group’). Non-significant results are also reported (e.g. ‘The differences in age, sex, cardiac function classification, atrial fibrillation course, and type of atrial fibrillation were not statistically significant between the high-level and low-level groups.’).
  • Key statistical measures (such as the p-value, or correlation coefficient r) are reported (e.g. ‘The Pearson correlation analysis results showed that serum MIP-1α level was positively correlated with the left atrial anteroposterior diameter (r = 0.745)’). However, note that the authors do not explain or define what a Pearson correlation analysis is. It is expected that readers know.
  • Note that the authors do not make any interpretation, or draw any inferences about their results. The tone is neutral, objective, and concise.
  • Each table and figure has a corresponding number, and a heading that is descriptive enough to understand what they represent (e.g. ‘[Table 1] Comparison of clinical data of the case group.’).
  • Each and every table and figure is referred to within the text (e.g. ‘Significant differences in the anteroposterior diameter, upper and lower diameter, left and right diameter of the left atrium, left atrial volume, volume index, left atrial global ejection fraction, and sphericity were detected between the low-level and high-level groups (p < 0.05) as shown in Table 2.’).

Reference​

Chen Bai, Qing Ye, Yichen Zhao, Yang Liu, Jiangang Wang, "MIP-1α Level and Its Correlation with the Risk of Left Atrial Remodeling in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation", Contrast Media & Molecular Imaging, vol. 2022, Article ID 1756268, 6 pages, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/1756268

N.B. Tables and Figures have not been copied in.

Structuring your Results section

Useful phrases for your Results section

FAQs about writing a Results section