Introduction
The importance of writing is often overlooked when considering a field in science or engineering. All scientists and researchers, however, spend a significant amount of time writing throughout their career. For instance, lab reports are used to present any findings made through experiments and research. Despite the type of information being presented in the lab report, they all usually contain these same eight features:
- An informative title
- An abstract outlining the structure of the entire report
- An introduction explaining the work done with the hypothesis or why it relates to thefield
- The materials and methods
- The results and evidence
- A discussion analyzing the results and its significance
- A conclusion summarizing the report
- The references used throughout the report
Most scientists and researchers will have different writing styles and preferences to how they want to display their information. These eight features follow a general guideline that reflects the scientific method that has been valued and followed for centuries. An in-depth analysis of two lab reports, “A Dedicated Atrial Fibrillation Program Improves Catheter Ablation Outcomes and Electrophysiology Lab Resource Utilization” by Donna M. Suter and “The Cardiac Electrophysiology Web Lab” by Jonathan Cooper, Martin Scharm, and Gary R. Mirams can reveal the discrepancies of these features on the effectiveness of the report. (Markel, 2015)
Lab Report I
The first lab report to be analyzed is “A Dedicated Atrial Fibrillation Program Improves Catheter Ablation Outcomes and Electrophysiology Lab Resource Utilization” written by Donna M. Suter. This report discusses the outcome of research done with a new atrial fibrillation (AF) program and its effect on catheter ablation and lab resources. Atrial fibrillation is the most common type of heart arrythmia and is often associated with high morbidity, mortality, and healthcare resource utilization. Catheter ablation is a complex procedure that uses radiofrequencies to destroy small areas of heart tissue that may cause the arrythmia. Following the usage of the new AF program, researchers observed a decrease in unfavorable events and an increase in the efficiency of hospital resource utilization, supporting their original hypothesis.
Suter does an excellent job of forming a title that allows readers to understand what the report is discussing or find the report using keywords. She then moves onto discussing the background of AF and catheter ablation. Suter, however, could have included more a detailed explanation of AF and various tools that are used for the management of its symptoms as well as explain why she chose to go into catheter ablation specifically in depth.
From there, Suter goes onto the methods used for her study, skipping an abstract and formal introduction. Suter’s methods did not include the specific materials she used, causing her report to be non-replicable. Her methods were very general, lacking detail as to how reviews were recorded, and how “operational deficiencies were identified” (Donna M. Suter, 2016). The results of the study were then listed without a discussion to follow which would explain the significance of these results. She did mention how the results were taken over a span of five years, and how the rates of adverse outcomes changed in the final year.
In the conclusion, Suter moves on to say that “the non-randomized nature of this study precludes an assumption of casualty” (Donna M. Suter, 2016), explaining that the study is not meant to provide a general conclusion of the effect of a new AF program on catheter ablation and resource utilization. Although Suter does summarize the results of the study, the conclusion seems to lack the overall purpose of the study as a whole. Suter also does not provide any references, making it impossible for a reader to reference the credibility of her information.
Lab Report II
“The Cardiac Electrophysiology Web Lab” was written by Jonathan Cooper, Martin Scharm, and Gary R. Mirams explaining a study done on computational models of cardiac cellular electrophysiology. There currently exist a large handful of various mathematical models representing cardiac electrophysiology, the science of electrical activities of the heart. However, there remains to be no way of identifying and comparing all these models to allow for an understanding of how each model reacts in a certain scenario. Therefore, their study consisted of creating an online resource with immediate comparison of thirty-six models and twenty-three protocols in various experimental scenarios. They have made this free resource publicly available allowing investigators to make informed decisions on computational models for their cardiac electrophysiology labs.
The title written by Cooper, Scharm, and Mirams doesn’t provide any explanation to what the report is about or include key words other than cardiac electrophysiology. If research was being done on various computational models, readers would have no clue that those models are discussed just by looking at the title. From there, however, Cooper, Scharm and Mirams include a very detailed abstract thoroughly explaining the problem they’re looking to solve, how they solved it, and what they expect it to be used for. The abstract seems to include all the key words that were not included in the title, giving readers an overview of the entire report.
They continue on with a comprehensive introduction explaining the background of computational modeling of cardiac electrophysiology along with complications, limitations, and new efforts made. From the introduction, readers are able to understand the purpose of their study and the initial question that went into creating the study. The materials and methods include both a detailed step by step explanation that went into the creation of their online resource and a schematic of the technical infrastructure of their resource, allowing for a thorough understanding and replication of its creation if desired.
The results section was then divided into several subsections separating their exploration in certain model characteristics, their correction in model encodings, and steady states they had reached. Cooper, Scharm, and Mirams also include an experiment overview table which shows the experiments that were available on their site, action potential (AP) waveforms that are “a symbolic definition of the mathematical model equations that is independent of any particularnumerical method” (Cooper, Scharm, & Mirams, 2016) , and restitution curves that represent one of the models included on the website.
In the discussions section, they continue to explain the significance of their findings and how it affected the development of their website. The intended future usage and improvements of their site is also included in the discussions section. Cooper, Scharm, and Mirams could have included a conclusion to summarize the results of their report as well as how they intend to expand on it in the future. From there, they were sure to also include author contributions, acknowledgements, and references certifying their credibility.
Similarity and Disparity
After doing a thorough analysis of both reports, the similarities and disparities of both become very clear. Suter’s report lacks many of the crucial features included by Cooper, Scharm, and Mirams making Suter’s report much weaker. The absence of an abstract, introduction, materials, discussion, and references reduces the replicability, credibility, and understanding of her report as a whole. The report seems to be pretty much useless to anyone who has no previous knowledge on the topic or experiment in general.
Her introduction is replaced by a background, but the background doesn’t effectively explain the development or purpose of the study. Suter also includes a brief results section which bombards the reader with a bunch of numbers, without little explanation of what they mean or its significance in the field. This explanation is also not included in the conclusion, therefore making the conclusion ineffective to the understanding of the study’s intention. The credibility of the study is also put into question due to the lack of any references.
Cooper, Scharm, and Mirams do an excellent job on their explanation of the process of their study and its importance to the field. Their lack of an effective title does make it harder for readers to find the report in several databases. Most of what is usually discussed in the conclusion was included in their discussions section, however, a conclusion would’ve been an effective way to summarize their report due to its length and scholarly language.
All in all, both reports effectively discussed studies done regarding cardiac electrophysiology. Through an in-depth analysis of both, the similarities and discrepancies allow for a better understanding of how certain features of a report can strengthen or weaken the report’s effectiveness depending on its usage and language.
References
Cooper, J., Scharm, M., & Mirams, G. R. (2016, January). The Cardiac Electrophysiology Web Lab. Biophysical Journal, 110(2), 292-300.
Donna M. Suter, K. F. (2016). A DEDICATED ATRIAL FIBRILLATION PROGRAM IMPROVES CATHETER ABLATION OUTCOMES AND ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY LAB RESOURCE UTILIZATION. ACC.16, 1.
Markel, M. (2015). Technical Communication Eleventh Edition. Boston, New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s.
Reflection
At first, I found it much more difficult to locate two reports on similar topics that included most if not all of the sections necessary for a lab report. I must’ve searched the databases for hours simply trying to find a topic that would have a variety of lab reports, let alone looking for the report themselves. I’ve always been naturally pulled into the medical field,finding all developments and studies done to be insanely intriguing. Once I had decided on that, it was time to actually find the reports. Every time I believed I had found one, I constantly ran into trouble finding another on the same topic that I would be able to use, until I found the one on electrophysiology. Admittingly, I had no clue what electrophysiology was at first, but I had no problem doing some of my own research to be able to understand what the report was discussing.
The first report I found was “The Cardiac Electrophysiology Web Lab” by Jonathan Cooper, Martin Scharm, and Gary R. Mirams, which at first glance was the perfect example of what all reports should include. After doing some more digging I found “A Dedicated Atrial Fibrillation Program Improves Catheter Ablation Outcomes and Electrophysiology Lab Resource Utilization” by Donna M. Suter, a report that was much shorter than the first. I thought to myself, “This is perfect. It’ll be an easy comparison.” Once I started actually reading both, however, I realized there was much more detail than what was on the surface.
I started by outlining each section in my notebook, noting down the biggest differences between the two, which report was missing which sections. Originally, I believed that would be the main point of conversation in my analysis: the lack of certain sections and its effect on the report as a whole. After reading the sections thoroughly, I realized that the ‘perfect’ I believed to have found, wasn’t as perfect as I thought. Not only was it missing sections, but it also could have included some detail that was included in the shorter report.
Writing the analysis itself was just like many other analyses I had written in the past for other courses. The peer review allowed me to take a look at other ways to write the analysis, other than the outline I thought to be the only way to take on this assignment. Through this assignment, I was able to get practice using the data bases to find a certain type of document on various topics while exploring new studies done in a field of my interest. My favorite part of this assignment happened to be exploring the data bases for topics and new advancements done in different fields because it opens your eyes to the numerous developments that are happening in the world around us on a daily basis.
