You are on page 1of 2

10/23/2013

Each scientific article should equal one or two main ideas. These should be stated in the Conclusion. Some journals use a format that includes a section labeled Conclusion or Summary,

The Introduction of the paper gives the current scientific context of these ideas, the Discussion shows how your data lead to or support the ideas, and the Conclusion summarizes the ideas in one succinct paragraph.

When you first face the Conclusion section of your paper, you should already have a draft of the Discussion. The Discussion moves from your specific observations to more general statements related to the work of others.

For your Conclusion, take the recap from the beginning of your Discussion and the general statements from the end, and forge a single uncluttered paragraph.

10/23/2013

Example of a Conclusion: Conclusion Our intensification of standard Bodian stained cells can outline fine cell processes in tissue sections and in fixed tissue cultures. The details of individual growth cones of cultured neurons are especially clearly stained and can be seen well with light microscopy.

Here, from a variety of scientific articles, are examples of straightforward Conclusions that clearly state the points of the papers.

Together, our data provide further evidence that post-remission therapy with HiDAC is a safe and effective consolidation treatment for AML patients in CR aged less than 60 years. The optimal number of consolidation cycles and the subgroups of patients who benefit most from this regimen remain to be defined in forthcoming trials.

In summary, P188 may be a free radical scavenger (Marks et al., 2001), whereas PEG is not. They both, however, directly reduce ROS and LPO in the damaged nervous system. Furthermore, they both provide neuro-protection to injured spinal cord and thus will continue to be investigated as potential therapies, simple to apply, for various forms of neurotrauma.

Our study demonstrates that TCS may serve as a valuable tool in the neuroimaging ofPDproviding easily available information in addition to other neuroimaging data. Because of the lack of invasiveness and the relatively low cost, it is particularly useful for an application to a large number of patients. Further studies are required to determine whether differences in the echogenicity of the SN in PD patients may display differences in the genetic background or other patho-genetical factors of the disease.