3. Results
24. Described the results in terms of the answers to the questions/aims presented at the end
of the introduction in the same order as they were presented then?
25. Avoided phrases such as ‘The result was not significant’ (only differences and associations
can be statistically significant, not ‘results’)?
26. Always used meaningful labels when referring to results from individual questionnaire
items (rather than just the question number)?
27. Avoided repeating material in both tables/graphs and text? The text should simply
summarize the data presented in tables or graphs.
28. Ensured that all tables and figures have titles using a consistent format and are numbered
consecutively?
29. Cited all tables and figures in the text using a phrase such as ‘Table 1 shows that …’?
30. Stated the test statistics (e.g. t-value, F-value or chi-squared value), degrees of freedom
and p values? Even for p values greater than 0.05 it is helpful to show the exact p-value
to aid any subsequent meta-analysis.meta-analysis.
31. Clearly stated the Ns for every mean, correlation, proportion or other analyses? Always
give the Ns corresponding to percentages.
Baseline characteristics of those in the
analyses
xxx
Tabel 1: Baseline characteristics for the alcohol and drug addicted patients in the secondary analyses at follow-up 6 weeks and 12 months after inclusion in the randomised trial on the very integrated lifestyle intervention programme (VIP).
Flere resultater
6-weeks
xxxx
12-months
After 12 months...
4. Discussion
33. Begun the discussion with a summary of the main findings?
34. Related the findings to previous research in terms of whether they support or fail to support the conclusions of that research?
35. Explained how the findings reflect on theory, practice or policy formulation?
36. Examined the limitations of the study, addressing issues such as sample size, sample
representativeness, measurement error, measurement bias, whether any intervention was successfully implemented, whether there was contamination between different intervention conditions and ability to generalize from the findings?
37. Attempted to explain apparently anomalous findings?
38. Avoided reporting results in the discussion section that have not been mentioned in the results section?
39. Finished with a paragraph summarizing the main conclusions?
5. Conclusion
xxx
Clinical trial
registration
xxx
Acknowledgments
xxx
Funding
xxx
Author Contributions
xxx
Conflicts of Interest
xxx
References
40. Ensured that your citations and references follow a consistent format, e.g. ‘Smith, Jones & Pike, 1998’ and follow the journal’s guidance to authors?
41. Ensured that your references are complete and match the citations in the paper?
42. Ensured that all non-English titles are accompanied by an English translation?
43. Avoided citing unpublished work, especially work reporting substantive findings?
44. Ensured that the references are in the required order?
General
45. Included an acknowledgements section stating the source of funding and thanking relevant people for their assistance?
46. Indicated any conflicts of interest?
47. Ensured that your formatting is consistent and appropriate (e.g. single blank lines between paragraphs, no indentations at the start of paragraphs, no multiple blank lines)?
48. Ensured that tables and figures are always cited in the text and all have numbers and titles?
49. Always used the past tense when describing other people’s findings, and your own methods and results?
50. Avoided colloquial expressions that would be confusing to an international readership?
51. Used Arabic numerals (e.g. ‘12’, ‘34’) except for numbers below 10 and those beginning a sentence, in which cases you spell out the numbers (e.g. ‘three’)?
52. Ensured that all abbreviations are spelled out in full the first time they are used?
53. Avoided using shortenings such as ‘don’t’ and ‘it’s’?
54. Ensured that all the authors have read through the manuscript carefully to check it over?