research title significance of the study

The Savvy Scientist

Experiences of a London PhD student and beyond

What is the Significance of a Study? Examples and Guide

If you’re reading this post you’re probably wondering: what is the significance of a study?

No matter where you’re at with a piece of research, it is a good idea to think about the potential significance of your work. And sometimes you’ll have to explicitly write a statement of significance in your papers, it addition to it forming part of your thesis.

In this post I’ll cover what the significance of a study is, how to measure it, how to describe it with examples and add in some of my own experiences having now worked in research for over nine years.

If you’re reading this because you’re writing up your first paper, welcome! You may also like my how-to guide for all aspects of writing your first research paper .

Looking for guidance on writing the statement of significance for a paper or thesis? Click here to skip straight to that section.

What is the Significance of a Study?

For research papers, theses or dissertations it’s common to explicitly write a section describing the significance of the study. We’ll come onto what to include in that section in just a moment.

However the significance of a study can actually refer to several different things.

Working our way from the most technical to the broadest, depending on the context, the significance of a study may refer to:

• Within your study: Statistical significance. Can we trust the findings?
• Wider research field: Research significance. How does your study progress the field?
• Commercial / economic significance: Could there be business opportunities for your findings?
• Societal significance: What impact could your study have on the wider society.
• And probably other domain-specific significance!

We’ll shortly cover each of them in turn, including how they’re measured and some examples for each type of study significance.

But first, let’s touch on why you should consider the significance of your research at an early stage.

Why Care About the Significance of a Study?

No matter what is motivating you to carry out your research, it is sensible to think about the potential significance of your work. In the broadest sense this asks, how does the study contribute to the world?

After all, for many people research is only worth doing if it will result in some expected significance. For the vast majority of us our studies won’t be significant enough to reach the evening news, but most studies will help to enhance knowledge in a particular field and when research has at least some significance it makes for a far more fulfilling longterm pursuit.

Furthermore, a lot of us are carrying out research funded by the public. It therefore makes sense to keep an eye on what benefits the work could bring to the wider community.

Often in research you’ll come to a crossroads where you must decide which path of research to pursue. Thinking about the potential benefits of a strand of research can be useful for deciding how to spend your time, money and resources.

It’s worth noting though, that not all research activities have to work towards obvious significance. This is especially true while you’re a PhD student, where you’re figuring out what you enjoy and may simply be looking for an opportunity to learn a new skill.

However, if you’re trying to decide between two potential projects, it can be useful to weigh up the potential significance of each.

Let’s now dive into the different types of significance, starting with research significance.

Research Significance

What is the research significance of a study.

Unless someone specifies which type of significance they’re referring to, it is fair to assume that they want to know about the research significance of your study.

Research significance describes how your work has contributed to the field, how it could inform future studies and progress research.

Where should I write about my study’s significance in my thesis?

Typically you should write about your study’s significance in the Introduction and Conclusions sections of your thesis.

It’s important to mention it in the Introduction so that the relevance of your work and the potential impact and benefits it could have on the field are immediately apparent. Explaining why your work matters will help to engage readers (and examiners!) early on.

It’s also a good idea to detail the study’s significance in your Conclusions section. This adds weight to your findings and helps explain what your study contributes to the field.

On occasion you may also choose to include a brief description in your Abstract.

What is expected when submitting an article to a journal

It is common for journals to request a statement of significance, although this can sometimes be called other things such as:

• Impact statement
• Significance statement
• Advances in knowledge section

Here is one such example of what is expected:

Impact Statement:  An Impact Statement is required for all submissions.  Your impact statement will be evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief, Global Editors, and appropriate Associate Editor. For your manuscript to receive full review, the editors must be convinced that it is an important advance in for the field. The Impact Statement is not a restating of the abstract. It should address the following: Why is the work submitted important to the field? How does the work submitted advance the field? What new information does this work impart to the field? How does this new information impact the field? Experimental Biology and Medicine journal, author guidelines

Typically the impact statement will be shorter than the Abstract, around 150 words.

Defining the study’s significance is helpful not just for the impact statement (if the journal asks for one) but also for building a more compelling argument throughout your submission. For instance, usually you’ll start the Discussion section of a paper by highlighting the research significance of your work. You’ll also include a short description in your Abstract too.

How to describe the research significance of a study, with examples

Whether you’re writing a thesis or a journal article, the approach to writing about the significance of a study are broadly the same.

I’d therefore suggest using the questions above as a starting point to base your statements on.

• Why is the work submitted important to the field?
• How does the work submitted advance the field?
• What new information does this work impart to the field?
• How does this new information impact the field?

Answer those questions and you’ll have a much clearer idea of the research significance of your work.

When describing it, try to clearly state what is novel about your study’s contribution to the literature. Then go on to discuss what impact it could have on progressing the field along with recommendations for future work.

Potential sentence starters

If you’re not sure where to start, why not set a 10 minute timer and have a go at trying to finish a few of the following sentences. Not sure on what to put? Have a chat to your supervisor or lab mates and they may be able to suggest some ideas.

• This study is important to the field because…
• These findings advance the field by…
• Our results highlight the importance of…
• Our discoveries impact the field by…

Now you’ve had a go let’s have a look at some real life examples.

Statement of significance examples

A statement of significance / impact:

Impact Statement This review highlights the historical development of the concept of “ideal protein” that began in the 1950s and 1980s for poultry and swine diets, respectively, and the major conceptual deficiencies of the long-standing concept of “ideal protein” in animal nutrition based on recent advances in amino acid (AA) metabolism and functions. Nutritionists should move beyond the “ideal protein” concept to consider optimum ratios and amounts of all proteinogenic AAs in animal foods and, in the case of carnivores, also taurine. This will help formulate effective low-protein diets for livestock, poultry, and fish, while sustaining global animal production. Because they are not only species of agricultural importance, but also useful models to study the biology and diseases of humans as well as companion (e.g. dogs and cats), zoo, and extinct animals in the world, our work applies to a more general readership than the nutritionists and producers of farm animals. Wu G, Li P. The “ideal protein” concept is not ideal in animal nutrition.  Experimental Biology and Medicine . 2022;247(13):1191-1201. doi: 10.1177/15353702221082658

And the same type of section but this time called “Advances in knowledge”:

Advances in knowledge: According to the MY-RADs criteria, size measurements of focal lesions in MRI are now of relevance for response assessment in patients with monoclonal plasma cell disorders. Size changes of 1 or 2 mm are frequently observed due to uncertainty of the measurement only, while the actual focal lesion has not undergone any biological change. Size changes of at least 6 mm or more in  T 1  weighted or  T 2  weighted short tau inversion recovery sequences occur in only 5% or less of cases when the focal lesion has not undergone any biological change. Wennmann M, Grözinger M, Weru V, et al. Test-retest, inter- and intra-rater reproducibility of size measurements of focal bone marrow lesions in MRI in patients with multiple myeloma [published online ahead of print, 2023 Apr 12].  Br J Radiol . 2023;20220745. doi: 10.1259/bjr.20220745

Other examples of research significance

Moving beyond the formal statement of significance, here is how you can describe research significance more broadly within your paper.

Describing research impact in an Abstract of a paper:

Three-dimensional visualisation and quantification of the chondrocyte population within articular cartilage can be achieved across a field of view of several millimetres using laboratory-based micro-CT. The ability to map chondrocytes in 3D opens possibilities for research in fields from skeletal development through to medical device design and treatment of cartilage degeneration. Conclusions section of the abstract in my first paper .

In the Discussion section of a paper:

We report for the utility of a standard laboratory micro-CT scanner to visualise and quantify features of the chondrocyte population within intact articular cartilage in 3D. This study represents a complimentary addition to the growing body of evidence supporting the non-destructive imaging of the constituents of articular cartilage. This offers researchers the opportunity to image chondrocyte distributions in 3D without specialised synchrotron equipment, enabling investigations such as chondrocyte morphology across grades of cartilage damage, 3D strain mapping techniques such as digital volume correlation to evaluate mechanical properties  in situ , and models for 3D finite element analysis  in silico  simulations. This enables an objective quantification of chondrocyte distribution and morphology in three dimensions allowing greater insight for investigations into studies of cartilage development, degeneration and repair. One such application of our method, is as a means to provide a 3D pattern in the cartilage which, when combined with digital volume correlation, could determine 3D strain gradient measurements enabling potential treatment and repair of cartilage degeneration. Moreover, the method proposed here will allow evaluation of cartilage implanted with tissue engineered scaffolds designed to promote chondral repair, providing valuable insight into the induced regenerative process. The Discussion section of the paper is laced with references to research significance.

How is longer term research significance measured?

Looking beyond writing impact statements within papers, sometimes you’ll want to quantify the long term research significance of your work. For instance when applying for jobs.

The most obvious measure of a study’s long term research significance is the number of citations it receives from future publications. The thinking is that a study which receives more citations will have had more research impact, and therefore significance , than a study which received less citations. Citations can give a broad indication of how useful the work is to other researchers but citations aren’t really a good measure of significance.

Bear in mind that us researchers can be lazy folks and sometimes are simply looking to cite the first paper which backs up one of our claims. You can find studies which receive a lot of citations simply for packaging up the obvious in a form which can be easily found and referenced, for instance by having a catchy or optimised title.

Likewise, research activity varies wildly between fields. Therefore a certain study may have had a big impact on a particular field but receive a modest number of citations, simply because not many other researchers are working in the field.

Nevertheless, citations are a standard measure of significance and for better or worse it remains impressive for someone to be the first author of a publication receiving lots of citations.

Other measures for the research significance of a study include:

• Accolades: best paper awards at conferences, thesis awards, “most downloaded” titles for articles, press coverage.
• How much follow-on research the study creates. For instance, part of my PhD involved a novel material initially developed by another PhD student in the lab. That PhD student’s research had unlocked lots of potential new studies and now lots of people in the group were using the same material and developing it for different applications. The initial study may not receive a high number of citations yet long term it generated a lot of research activity.

That covers research significance, but you’ll often want to consider other types of significance for your study and we’ll cover those next.

Statistical Significance

What is the statistical significance of a study.

Often as part of a study you’ll carry out statistical tests and then state the statistical significance of your findings: think p-values eg <0.05. It is useful to describe the outcome of these tests within your report or paper, to give a measure of statistical significance.

Effectively you are trying to show whether the performance of your innovation is actually better than a control or baseline and not just chance. Statistical significance deserves a whole other post so I won’t go into a huge amount of depth here.

Things that make publication in  The BMJ  impossible or unlikely Internal validity/robustness of the study • It had insufficient statistical power, making interpretation difficult; • Lack of statistical power; The British Medical Journal’s guide for authors

Calculating statistical significance isn’t always necessary (or valid) for a study, such as if you have a very small number of samples, but it is a very common requirement for scientific articles.

Writing a journal article? Check the journal’s guide for authors to see what they expect. Generally if you have approximately five or more samples or replicates it makes sense to start thinking about statistical tests. Speak to your supervisor and lab mates for advice, and look at other published articles in your field.

How is statistical significance measured?

Statistical significance is quantified using p-values . Depending on your study design you’ll choose different statistical tests to compute the p-value.

A p-value of 0.05 is a common threshold value. The 0.05 means that there is a 1/20 chance that the difference in performance you’re reporting is just down to random chance.

• p-values above 0.05 mean that the result isn’t statistically significant enough to be trusted: it is too likely that the effect you’re showing is just luck.
• p-values less than or equal to 0.05 mean that the result is statistically significant. In other words: unlikely to just be chance, which is usually considered a good outcome.

Low p-values (eg p = 0.001) mean that it is highly unlikely to be random chance (1/1000 in the case of p = 0.001), therefore more statistically significant.

It is important to clarify that, although low p-values mean that your findings are statistically significant, it doesn’t automatically mean that the result is scientifically important. More on that in the next section on research significance.

How to describe the statistical significance of your study, with examples

In the first paper from my PhD I ran some statistical tests to see if different staining techniques (basically dyes) increased how well you could see cells in cow tissue using micro-CT scanning (a 3D imaging technique).

In your methods section you should mention the statistical tests you conducted and then in the results you will have statements such as:

Between mediums for the two scan protocols C/N [contrast to noise ratio] was greater for EtOH than the PBS in both scanning methods (both  p  < 0.0001) with mean differences of 1.243 (95% CI [confidence interval] 0.709 to 1.778) for absorption contrast and 6.231 (95% CI 5.772 to 6.690) for propagation contrast. … Two repeat propagation scans were taken of samples from the PTA-stained groups. No difference in mean C/N was found with either medium: PBS had a mean difference of 0.058 ( p  = 0.852, 95% CI -0.560 to 0.676), EtOH had a mean difference of 1.183 ( p  = 0.112, 95% CI 0.281 to 2.648). From the Results section of my first paper, available here . Square brackets added for this post to aid clarity.

From this text the reader can infer from the first paragraph that there was a statistically significant difference in using EtOH compared to PBS (really small p-value of <0.0001). However, from the second paragraph, the difference between two repeat scans was statistically insignificant for both PBS (p = 0.852) and EtOH (p = 0.112).

By conducting these statistical tests you have then earned your right to make bold statements, such as these from the discussion section:

Propagation phase-contrast increases the contrast of individual chondrocytes [cartilage cells] compared to using absorption contrast. From the Discussion section from the same paper.

Without statistical tests you have no evidence that your results are not just down to random chance.

Beyond describing the statistical significance of a study in the main body text of your work, you can also show it in your figures.

In figures such as bar charts you’ll often see asterisks to represent statistical significance, and “n.s.” to show differences between groups which are not statistically significant. Here is one such figure, with some subplots, from the same paper:

In this example an asterisk (*) between two bars represents p < 0.05. Two asterisks (**) represents p < 0.001 and three asterisks (***) represents p < 0.0001. This should always be stated in the caption of your figure since the values that each asterisk refers to can vary.

Now that we know if a study is showing statistically and research significance, let’s zoom out a little and consider the potential for commercial significance.

Commercial and Industrial Significance

What are commercial and industrial significance.

Moving beyond significance in relation to academia, your research may also have commercial or economic significance.

Simply put:

• Commercial significance: could the research be commercialised as a product or service? Perhaps the underlying technology described in your study could be licensed to a company or you could even start your own business using it.
• Industrial significance: more widely than just providing a product which could be sold, does your research provide insights which may affect a whole industry? Such as: revealing insights or issues with current practices, performance gains you don’t want to commercialise (e.g. solar power efficiency), providing suggested frameworks or improvements which could be employed industry-wide.

I’ve grouped these two together because there can certainly be overlap. For instance, perhaps your new technology could be commercialised whilst providing wider improvements for the whole industry.

Commercial and industrial significance are not relevant to most studies, so only write about it if you and your supervisor can think of reasonable routes to your work having an impact in these ways.

How are commercial and industrial significance measured?

Unlike statistical and research significances, the measures of commercial and industrial significance can be much more broad.

Here are some potential measures of significance:

Commercial significance:

• How much value does your technology bring to potential customers or users?
• How big is the potential market and how much revenue could the product potentially generate?
• Is the intellectual property protectable? i.e. patentable, or if not could the novelty be protected with trade secrets: if so publish your method with caution!
• If commercialised, could the product bring employment to a geographical area?

Industrial significance:

What impact could it have on the industry? For instance if you’re revealing an issue with something, such as unintended negative consequences of a drug , what does that mean for the industry and the public? This could be:

• Reduced overhead costs
• Better safety
• Faster production methods
• Improved scaleability

How to describe the commercial and industrial significance of a study, with examples

Commercial significance.

If your technology could be commercially viable, and you’ve got an interest in commercialising it yourself, it is likely that you and your university may not want to immediately publish the study in a journal.

You’ll probably want to consider routes to exploiting the technology and your university may have a “technology transfer” team to help researchers navigate the various options.

However, if instead of publishing a paper you’re submitting a thesis or dissertation then it can be useful to highlight the commercial significance of your work. In this instance you could include statements of commercial significance such as:

The measurement technology described in this study provides state of the art performance and could enable the development of low cost devices for aerospace applications. An example of commercial significance I invented for this post

Industrial significance

First, think about the industrial sectors who could benefit from the developments described in your study.

For example if you’re working to improve battery efficiency it is easy to think of how it could lead to performance gains for certain industries, like personal electronics or electric vehicles. In these instances you can describe the industrial significance relatively easily, based off your findings.

For example:

By utilising abundant materials in the described battery fabrication process we provide a framework for battery manufacturers to reduce dependence on rare earth components. Again, an invented example

For other technologies there may well be industrial applications but they are less immediately obvious and applicable. In these scenarios the best you can do is to simply reframe your research significance statement in terms of potential commercial applications in a broad way.

As a reminder: not all studies should address industrial significance, so don’t try to invent applications just for the sake of it!

Societal Significance

What is the societal significance of a study.

The most broad category of significance is the societal impact which could stem from it.

If you’re working in an applied field it may be quite easy to see a route for your research to impact society. For others, the route to societal significance may be less immediate or clear.

Studies can help with big issues facing society such as:

• Medical applications : vaccines, surgical implants, drugs, improving patient safety. For instance this medical device and drug combination I worked on which has a very direct route to societal significance.
• Political significance : Your research may provide insights which could contribute towards potential changes in policy or better understanding of issues facing society.
• Public health : for instance COVID-19 transmission and related decisions.
• Climate change : mitigation such as more efficient solar panels and lower cost battery solutions, and studying required adaptation efforts and technologies. Also, better understanding around related societal issues, for instance this study on the effects of temperature on hate speech.

How is societal significance measured?

Societal significance at a high level can be quantified by the size of its potential societal effect. Just like a lab risk assessment, you can think of it in terms of probability (or how many people it could help) and impact magnitude.

Societal impact = How many people it could help x the magnitude of the impact

Think about how widely applicable the findings are: for instance does it affect only certain people? Then think about the potential size of the impact: what kind of difference could it make to those people?

Between these two metrics you can get a pretty good overview of the potential societal significance of your research study.

How to describe the societal significance of a study, with examples

Quite often the broad societal significance of your study is what you’re setting the scene for in your Introduction. In addition to describing the existing literature, it is common to for the study’s motivation to touch on its wider impact for society.

For those of us working in healthcare research it is usually pretty easy to see a path towards societal significance.

Our CLOUT model has state-of-the-art performance in mortality prediction, surpassing other competitive NN models and a logistic regression model … Our results show that the risk factors identified by the CLOUT model agree with physicians’ assessment, suggesting that CLOUT could be used in real-world clinicalsettings. Our results strongly support that CLOUT may be a useful tool to generate clinical prediction models, especially among hospitalized and critically ill patient populations. Learning Latent Space Representations to Predict Patient Outcomes: Model Development and Validation

In other domains the societal significance may either take longer or be more indirect, meaning that it can be more difficult to describe the societal impact.

Even so, here are some examples I’ve found from studies in non-healthcare domains:

We examined food waste as an initial investigation and test of this methodology, and there is clear potential for the examination of not only other policy texts related to food waste (e.g., liability protection, tax incentives, etc.; Broad Leib et al., 2020) but related to sustainable fishing (Worm et al., 2006) and energy use (Hawken, 2017). These other areas are of obvious relevance to climate change… AI-Based Text Analysis for Evaluating Food Waste Policies

The continued development of state-of-the art NLP tools tailored to climate policy will allow climate researchers and policy makers to extract meaningful information from this growing body of text, to monitor trends over time and administrative units, and to identify potential policy improvements. BERT Classification of Paris Agreement Climate Action Plans

Top Tips For Identifying & Writing About the Significance of Your Study

• Writing a thesis? Describe the significance of your study in the Introduction and the Conclusion .
• Submitting a paper? Read the journal’s guidelines. If you’re writing a statement of significance for a journal, make sure you read any guidance they give for what they’re expecting.
• Take a step back from your research and consider your study’s main contributions.
• Read previously published studies in your field . Use this for inspiration and ideas on how to describe the significance of your own study
• Discuss the study with your supervisor and potential co-authors or collaborators and brainstorm potential types of significance for it.

Now you’ve finished reading up on the significance of a study you may also like my how-to guide for all aspects of writing your first research paper .

Writing an academic journal paper

I hope that you’ve learned something useful from this article about the significance of a study. If you have any more research-related questions let me know, I’m here to help.

To gain access to my content library you can subscribe below for free:

Share this:

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)

Related Posts

Minor Corrections: How To Make Them and Succeed With Your PhD Thesis

2nd June 2024 2nd June 2024

How to Master Data Management in Research

25th April 2024 27th April 2024

Thesis Title: Examples and Suggestions from a PhD Grad

23rd February 2024 23rd February 2024

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Privacy Overview

How To Write Significance of the Study (With Examples) 

Whether you’re writing a research paper or thesis, a portion called Significance of the Study ensures your readers understand the impact of your work. Learn how to effectively write this vital part of your research paper or thesis through our detailed steps, guidelines, and examples.

Related: How to Write a Concept Paper for Academic Research

Table of Contents

What is the significance of the study.

The Significance of the Study presents the importance of your research. It allows you to prove the study’s impact on your field of research, the new knowledge it contributes, and the people who will benefit from it.

Related: How To Write Scope and Delimitation of a Research Paper (With Examples)

Where Should I Put the Significance of the Study?

The Significance of the Study is part of the first chapter or the Introduction. It comes after the research’s rationale, problem statement, and hypothesis.

Related: How to Make Conceptual Framework (with Examples and Templates)

Why Should I Include the Significance of the Study?

The purpose of the Significance of the Study is to give you space to explain to your readers how exactly your research will be contributing to the literature of the field you are studying 1 . It’s where you explain why your research is worth conducting and its significance to the community, the people, and various institutions.

How To Write Significance of the Study: 5 Steps

Below are the steps and guidelines for writing your research’s Significance of the Study.

1. Use Your Research Problem as a Starting Point

Your problem statement can provide clues to your research study’s outcome and who will benefit from it 2 .

Ask yourself, “How will the answers to my research problem be beneficial?”. In this manner, you will know how valuable it is to conduct your study. 

Let’s say your research problem is “What is the level of effectiveness of the lemongrass (Cymbopogon citratus) in lowering the blood glucose level of Swiss mice (Mus musculus)?”

Discovering a positive correlation between the use of lemongrass and lower blood glucose level may lead to the following results:

• Increased public understanding of the plant’s medical properties;
• Higher appreciation of the importance of lemongrass  by the community;
• Adoption of lemongrass tea as a cheap, readily available, and natural remedy to lower their blood glucose level.

Once you’ve zeroed in on the general benefits of your study, it’s time to break it down into specific beneficiaries.

2. State How Your Research Will Contribute to the Existing Literature in the Field

Think of the things that were not explored by previous studies. Then, write how your research tackles those unexplored areas. Through this, you can convince your readers that you are studying something new and adding value to the field.

3. Explain How Your Research Will Benefit Society

In this part, tell how your research will impact society. Think of how the results of your study will change something in your community. 

For example, in the study about using lemongrass tea to lower blood glucose levels, you may indicate that through your research, the community will realize the significance of lemongrass and other herbal plants. As a result, the community will be encouraged to promote the cultivation and use of medicinal plants.

4. Mention the Specific Persons or Institutions Who Will Benefit From Your Study

Using the same example above, you may indicate that this research’s results will benefit those seeking an alternative supplement to prevent high blood glucose levels.

5. Indicate How Your Study May Help Future Studies in the Field

You must also specifically indicate how your research will be part of the literature of your field and how it will benefit future researchers. In our example above, you may indicate that through the data and analysis your research will provide, future researchers may explore other capabilities of herbal plants in preventing different diseases.

Tips and Warnings

• Think ahead . By visualizing your study in its complete form, it will be easier for you to connect the dots and identify the beneficiaries of your research.
• Write concisely. Make it straightforward, clear, and easy to understand so that the readers will appreciate the benefits of your research. Avoid making it too long and wordy.
• Go from general to specific . Like an inverted pyramid, you start from above by discussing the general contribution of your study and become more specific as you go along. For instance, if your research is about the effect of remote learning setup on the mental health of college students of a specific university , you may start by discussing the benefits of the research to society, to the educational institution, to the learning facilitators, and finally, to the students.
• Seek help . For example, you may ask your research adviser for insights on how your research may contribute to the existing literature. If you ask the right questions, your research adviser can point you in the right direction.
• Revise, revise, revise. Be ready to apply necessary changes to your research on the fly. Unexpected things require adaptability, whether it’s the respondents or variables involved in your study. There’s always room for improvement, so never assume your work is done until you have reached the finish line.

Significance of the Study Examples

This section presents examples of the Significance of the Study using the steps and guidelines presented above.

Example 1: STEM-Related Research

Research Topic: Level of Effectiveness of the Lemongrass ( Cymbopogon citratus ) Tea in Lowering the Blood Glucose Level of Swiss Mice ( Mus musculus ).

Significance of the Study .

This research will provide new insights into the medicinal benefit of lemongrass ( Cymbopogon citratus ), specifically on its hypoglycemic ability.

Through this research, the community will further realize promoting medicinal plants, especially lemongrass, as a preventive measure against various diseases. People and medical institutions may also consider lemongrass tea as an alternative supplement against hyperglycemia. 

Moreover, the analysis presented in this study will convey valuable information for future research exploring the medicinal benefits of lemongrass and other medicinal plants.  

Example 2: Business and Management-Related Research

Research Topic: A Comparative Analysis of Traditional and Social Media Marketing of Small Clothing Enterprises.

Significance of the Study:

By comparing the two marketing strategies presented by this research, there will be an expansion on the current understanding of the firms on these marketing strategies in terms of cost, acceptability, and sustainability. This study presents these marketing strategies for small clothing enterprises, giving them insights into which method is more appropriate and valuable for them. 

Specifically, this research will benefit start-up clothing enterprises in deciding which marketing strategy they should employ. Long-time clothing enterprises may also consider the result of this research to review their current marketing strategy.

Furthermore, a detailed presentation on the comparison of the marketing strategies involved in this research may serve as a tool for further studies to innovate the current method employed in the clothing Industry.

Example 3: Social Science -Related Research.

Research Topic:  Divide Et Impera : An Overview of How the Divide-and-Conquer Strategy Prevailed on Philippine Political History.

Significance of the Study :

Through the comprehensive exploration of this study on Philippine political history, the influence of the Divide et Impera, or political decentralization, on the political discernment across the history of the Philippines will be unraveled, emphasized, and scrutinized. Moreover, this research will elucidate how this principle prevailed until the current political theatre of the Philippines.

In this regard, this study will give awareness to society on how this principle might affect the current political context. Moreover, through the analysis made by this study, political entities and institutions will have a new approach to how to deal with this principle by learning about its influence in the past.

In addition, the overview presented in this research will push for new paradigms, which will be helpful for future discussion of the Divide et Impera principle and may lead to a more in-depth analysis.

Example 4: Humanities-Related Research

Research Topic: Effectiveness of Meditation on Reducing the Anxiety Levels of College Students.

Significance of the Study: 

This research will provide new perspectives in approaching anxiety issues of college students through meditation. 

Specifically, this research will benefit the following:

 Community – this study spreads awareness on recognizing anxiety as a mental health concern and how meditation can be a valuable approach to alleviating it.

Academic Institutions and Administrators – through this research, educational institutions and administrators may promote programs and advocacies regarding meditation to help students deal with their anxiety issues.

Mental health advocates – the result of this research will provide valuable information for the advocates to further their campaign on spreading awareness on dealing with various mental health issues, including anxiety, and how to stop stigmatizing those with mental health disorders.

Parents – this research may convince parents to consider programs involving meditation that may help the students deal with their anxiety issues.

Students will benefit directly from this research as its findings may encourage them to consider meditation to lower anxiety levels.

Future researchers – this study covers information involving meditation as an approach to reducing anxiety levels. Thus, the result of this study can be used for future discussions on the capabilities of meditation in alleviating other mental health concerns.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. what is the difference between the significance of the study and the rationale of the study.

Both aim to justify the conduct of the research. However, the Significance of the Study focuses on the specific benefits of your research in the field, society, and various people and institutions. On the other hand, the Rationale of the Study gives context on why the researcher initiated the conduct of the study.

Let’s take the research about the Effectiveness of Meditation in Reducing Anxiety Levels of College Students as an example. Suppose you are writing about the Significance of the Study. In that case, you must explain how your research will help society, the academic institution, and students deal with anxiety issues through meditation. Meanwhile, for the Rationale of the Study, you may state that due to the prevalence of anxiety attacks among college students, you’ve decided to make it the focal point of your research work.

2. What is the difference between Justification and the Significance of the Study?

In Justification, you express the logical reasoning behind the conduct of the study. On the other hand, the Significance of the Study aims to present to your readers the specific benefits your research will contribute to the field you are studying, community, people, and institutions.

Suppose again that your research is about the Effectiveness of Meditation in Reducing the Anxiety Levels of College Students. Suppose you are writing the Significance of the Study. In that case, you may state that your research will provide new insights and evidence regarding meditation’s ability to reduce college students’ anxiety levels. Meanwhile, you may note in the Justification that studies are saying how people used meditation in dealing with their mental health concerns. You may also indicate how meditation is a feasible approach to managing anxiety using the analysis presented by previous literature.

3. How should I start my research’s Significance of the Study section?

– This research will contribute… – The findings of this research… – This study aims to… – This study will provide… – Through the analysis presented in this study… – This study will benefit…

Moreover, you may start the Significance of the Study by elaborating on the contribution of your research in the field you are studying.

4. What is the difference between the Purpose of the Study and the Significance of the Study?

The Purpose of the Study focuses on why your research was conducted, while the Significance of the Study tells how the results of your research will benefit anyone.

Suppose your research is about the Effectiveness of Lemongrass Tea in Lowering the Blood Glucose Level of Swiss Mice . You may include in your Significance of the Study that the research results will provide new information and analysis on the medical ability of lemongrass to solve hyperglycemia. Meanwhile, you may include in your Purpose of the Study that your research wants to provide a cheaper and natural way to lower blood glucose levels since commercial supplements are expensive.

5. What is the Significance of the Study in Tagalog?

In Filipino research, the Significance of the Study is referred to as Kahalagahan ng Pag-aaral.

• Draft your Significance of the Study. Retrieved 18 April 2021, from http://dissertationedd.usc.edu/draft-your-significance-of-the-study.html
• Regoniel, P. (2015). Two Tips on How to Write the Significance of the Study. Retrieved 18 April 2021, from https://simplyeducate.me/2015/02/09/significance-of-the-study/

Written by Jewel Kyle Fabula

in Career and Education , Juander How

Jewel Kyle Fabula

Jewel Kyle Fabula is a Bachelor of Science in Economics student at the University of the Philippines Diliman. His passion for learning mathematics developed as he competed in some mathematics competitions during his Junior High School years. He loves cats, playing video games, and listening to music.

Browse all articles written by Jewel Kyle Fabula

Copyright Notice

All materials contained on this site are protected by the Republic of the Philippines copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published, or broadcast without the prior written permission of filipiknow.net or in the case of third party materials, the owner of that content. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright, or other notice from copies of the content. Be warned that we have already reported and helped terminate several websites and YouTube channels for blatantly stealing our content. If you wish to use filipiknow.net content for commercial purposes, such as for content syndication, etc., please contact us at legal(at)filipiknow(dot)net

Community Blog

Keep up-to-date on postgraduate related issues with our quick reads written by students, postdocs, professors and industry leaders.

What is the Significance of the Study?

• By DiscoverPhDs
• August 25, 2020

• what the significance of the study means,
• why it’s important to include in your research work,
• where you would include it in your paper, thesis or dissertation,
• how you write one
• and finally an example of a well written section about the significance of the study.

What does Significance of the Study mean?

The significance of the study is a written statement that explains why your research was needed. It’s a justification of the importance of your work and impact it has on your research field, it’s contribution to new knowledge and how others will benefit from it.

Why is the Significance of the Study important?

The significance of the study, also known as the rationale of the study, is important to convey to the reader why the research work was important. This may be an academic reviewer assessing your manuscript under peer-review, an examiner reading your PhD thesis, a funder reading your grant application or another research group reading your published journal paper. Your academic writing should make clear to the reader what the significance of the research that you performed was, the contribution you made and the benefits of it.

How do you write the Significance of the Study?

When writing this section, first think about where the gaps in knowledge are in your research field. What are the areas that are poorly understood with little or no previously published literature? Or what topics have others previously published on that still require further work. This is often referred to as the problem statement.

The introduction section within the significance of the study should include you writing the problem statement and explaining to the reader where the gap in literature is.

Then think about the significance of your research and thesis study from two perspectives: (1) what is the general contribution of your research on your field and (2) what specific contribution have you made to the knowledge and who does this benefit the most.

For example, the gap in knowledge may be that the benefits of dumbbell exercises for patients recovering from a broken arm are not fully understood. You may have performed a study investigating the impact of dumbbell training in patients with fractures versus those that did not perform dumbbell exercises and shown there to be a benefit in their use. The broad significance of the study would be the improvement in the understanding of effective physiotherapy methods. Your specific contribution has been to show a significant improvement in the rate of recovery in patients with broken arms when performing certain dumbbell exercise routines.

This statement should be no more than 500 words in length when written for a thesis. Within a research paper, the statement should be shorter and around 200 words at most.

Significance of the Study: An example

Building on the above hypothetical academic study, the following is an example of a full statement of the significance of the study for you to consider when writing your own. Keep in mind though that there’s no single way of writing the perfect significance statement and it may well depend on the subject area and the study content.

Here’s another example to help demonstrate how a significance of the study can also be applied to non-technical fields:

The significance of this research lies in its potential to inform clinical practices and patient counseling. By understanding the psychological outcomes associated with non-surgical facial aesthetics, practitioners can better guide their patients in making informed decisions about their treatment plans. Additionally, this study contributes to the body of academic knowledge by providing empirical evidence on the effects of these cosmetic procedures, which have been largely anecdotal up to this point.

The statement of the significance of the study is used by students and researchers in academic writing to convey the importance of the research performed; this section is written at the end of the introduction and should describe the specific contribution made and who it benefits.

A science investigatory project is a science-based research project or study that is performed by school children in a classroom, exhibition or science fair.

This article will answer common questions about the PhD synopsis, give guidance on how to write one, and provide my thoughts on samples.

Need to write a list of abbreviations for a thesis or dissertation? Read our post to find out where they go, what to include and how to format them.

Join thousands of other students and stay up to date with the latest PhD programmes, funding opportunities and advice.

Browse PhDs Now

Find out the differences between a Literature Review and an Annotated Bibliography, whey they should be used and how to write them.

A concept paper is a short document written by a researcher before starting their research project, explaining what the study is about, why it is needed and the methods that will be used.

Dr Patel gained his PhD in 2011 from Aston University, researching risk factors & systemic biomarkers for Type II diabetes & cardiovascular disease. He is currently a business director at a large global pharmaceutical.

Dr Clarence gained her PhD in Higher Education Studies from Rhodes University, South Africa in 2013. She is now an honorary research associate at the University and also runs her own blog about working as a researcher/parent in academia.

Join Thousands of Students

How To Write a Significance Statement for Your Research

A significance statement is an essential part of a research paper. It explains the importance and relevance of the study to the academic community and the world at large. To write a compelling significance statement, identify the research problem, explain why it is significant, provide evidence of its importance, and highlight its potential impact on future research, policy, or practice. A well-crafted significance statement should effectively communicate the value of the research to readers and help them understand why it matters.

Updated on May 4, 2023

A significance statement is a clearly stated, non-technical paragraph that explains why your research matters. It’s central in making the public aware of and gaining support for your research.

Write it in jargon-free language that a reader from any field can understand. Well-crafted, easily readable significance statements can improve your chances for citation and impact and make it easier for readers outside your field to find and understand your work.

Read on for more details on what a significance statement is, how it can enhance the impact of your research, and, of course, how to write one.

What is a significance statement in research?

A significance statement answers the question: How will your research advance scientific knowledge and impact society at large (as well as specific populations)? 

You might also see it called a “Significance of the study” statement. Some professional organizations in the STEM sciences and social sciences now recommended that journals in their disciplines make such statements a standard feature of each published article. Funding agencies also consider “significance” a key criterion for their awards.

Read some examples of significance statements from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) here .

Depending upon the specific journal or funding agency’s requirements, your statement may be around 100 words and answer these questions:

1. What’s the purpose of this research?

2. What are its key findings?

3. Why do they matter?

4. Who benefits from the research results?

Readers will want to know: “What is interesting or important about this research?” Keep asking yourself that question.

Where to place the significance statement in your manuscript

Most journals ask you to place the significance statement before or after the abstract, so check with each journal’s guide. 

This article is focused on the formal significance statement, even though you’ll naturally highlight your project’s significance elsewhere in your manuscript. (In the introduction, you’ll set out your research aims, and in the conclusion, you’ll explain the potential applications of your research and recommend areas for future research. You’re building an overall case for the value of your work.)

Developing the significance statement

The main steps in planning and developing your statement are to assess the gaps to which your study contributes, and then define your work’s implications and impact.

Identify what gaps your study fills and what it contributes

Your literature review was a big part of how you planned your study. To develop your research aims and objectives, you identified gaps or unanswered questions in the preceding research and designed your study to address them.

Go back to that lit review and look at those gaps again. Review your research proposal to refresh your memory. Ask:

• How have my research findings advanced knowledge or provided notable new insights?
• How has my research helped to prove (or disprove) a hypothesis or answer a research question?
• Why are those results important?

Consider your study’s potential impact at two levels: 

• What contribution does my research make to my field?
• How does it specifically contribute to knowledge; that is, who will benefit the most from it?

Define the implications and potential impact

As you make notes, keep the reasons in mind for why you are writing this statement. Whom will it impact, and why?

The first audience for your significance statement will be journal reviewers when you submit your article for publishing. Many journals require one for manuscript submissions. Study the author’s guide of your desired journal to see its criteria ( here’s an example ). Peer reviewers who can clearly understand the value of your research will be more likely to recommend publication. 

Second, when you apply for funding, your significance statement will help justify why your research deserves a grant from a funding agency . The U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), for example, wants to see that a project will “exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field(s) involved.” Clear, simple language is always valuable because not all reviewers will be specialists in your field.

Third, this concise statement about your study’s importance can affect how potential readers engage with your work. Science journalists and interested readers can promote and spread your work, enhancing your reputation and influence. Help them understand your work.

You’re now ready to express the importance of your research clearly and concisely. Time to start writing.

How to write a significance statement: Key elements 

When drafting your statement, focus on both the content and writing style.

• In terms of content, emphasize the importance, timeliness, and relevance of your research results. 
• Write the statement in plain, clear language rather than scientific or technical jargon. Your audience will include not just your fellow scientists but also non-specialists like journalists, funding reviewers, and members of the public. 

Follow the process we outline below to build a solid, well-crafted, and informative statement. 

Get started

Some suggested opening lines to help you get started might be:

• The implications of this study are… 
• Building upon previous contributions, our study moves the field forward because…
• Our study furthers previous understanding about…

Alternatively, you may start with a statement about the phenomenon you’re studying, leading to the problem statement.

Include these components

Next, draft some sentences that include the following elements. A good example, which we’ll use here, is a significance statement by Rogers et al. (2022) published in the Journal of Climate .

1. Briefly situate your research study in its larger context . Start by introducing the topic, leading to a problem statement. Here’s an example:

‘Heatwaves pose a major threat to human health, ecosystems, and human systems.”

2. State the research problem.

“Simultaneous heatwaves affecting multiple regions can exacerbate such threats. For example, multiple food-producing regions simultaneously undergoing heat-related crop damage could drive global food shortages.”

3. Tell what your study does to address it.

“We assess recent changes in the occurrence of simultaneous large heatwaves.”

4. Provide brief but powerful evidence to support the claims your statement is making , Use quantifiable terms rather than vague ones (e.g., instead of “This phenomenon is happening now more than ever,” see below how Rogers et al. (2022) explained it). This evidence intensifies and illustrates the problem more vividly:

“Such simultaneous heatwaves are 7 times more likely now than 40 years ago. They are also hotter and affect a larger area. Their increasing occurrence is mainly driven by warming baseline temperatures due to global heating, but changes in weather patterns contribute to disproportionate increases over parts of Europe, the eastern United States, and Asia.

5. Relate your study’s impact to the broader context , starting with its general significance to society—then, when possible, move to the particular as you name specific applications of your research findings. (Our example lacks this second level of application.) 

“Better understanding the drivers of weather pattern changes is therefore important for understanding future concurrent heatwave characteristics and their impacts.”

Refine your English

Don’t understate or overstate your findings – just make clear what your study contributes. When you have all the elements in place, review your draft to simplify and polish your language. Even better, get an expert AJE edit . Be sure to use “plain” language rather than academic jargon.

• Avoid acronyms, scientific jargon, and technical terms 
• Use active verbs in your sentence structure rather than passive voice (e.g., instead of “It was found that...”, use “We found...”)
• Make sentence structures short, easy to understand – readable
• Try to address only one idea in each sentence and keep sentences within 25 words (15 words is even better)
• Eliminate nonessential words and phrases (“fluff” and wordiness)

Enhance your significance statement’s impact

Always take time to review your draft multiple times. Make sure that you:

• Keep your language focused
• Provide evidence to support your claims
• Relate the significance to the broader research context in your field

After revising your significance statement, request feedback from a reading mentor about how to make it even clearer. If you’re not a native English speaker, seek help from a native-English-speaking colleague or use an editing service like AJE to make sure your work is at a native level.

Understanding the significance of your study

Your readers may have much less interest than you do in the specific details of your research methods and measures. Many readers will scan your article to learn how your findings might apply to them and their own research. 

Different types of significance

Your findings may have different types of significance, relevant to different populations or fields of study for different reasons. You can emphasize your work’s statistical, clinical, or practical significance. Editors or reviewers in the social sciences might also evaluate your work’s social or political significance.

Statistical significance means that the results are unlikely to have occurred randomly. Instead, it implies a true cause-and-effect relationship.

Clinical significance means that your findings are applicable for treating patients and improving quality of life.

Practical significance is when your research outcomes are meaningful to society at large, in the “real world.” Practical significance is usually measured by the study’s  effect size . Similarly, evaluators may attribute social or political significance to research that addresses “real and immediate” social problems.

The AJE Team

See our "Privacy Policy"

• Privacy Policy

Home » Background of The Study – Examples and Writing Guide

Background of The Study – Examples and Writing Guide

Table of Contents

Background of The Study

Definition:

Background of the study refers to the context, circumstances, and history that led to the research problem or topic being studied. It provides the reader with a comprehensive understanding of the subject matter and the significance of the study.

The background of the study usually includes a discussion of the relevant literature, the gap in knowledge or understanding, and the research questions or hypotheses to be addressed. It also highlights the importance of the research topic and its potential contributions to the field. A well-written background of the study sets the stage for the research and helps the reader to appreciate the need for the study and its potential significance.

How to Write Background of The Study

Here are some steps to help you write the background of the study:

Identify the Research Problem

Start by identifying the research problem you are trying to address. This problem should be significant and relevant to your field of study.

Provide Context

Once you have identified the research problem, provide some context. This could include the historical, social, or political context of the problem.

Review Literature

Conduct a thorough review of the existing literature on the topic. This will help you understand what has been studied and what gaps exist in the current research.

Identify Research Gap

Based on your literature review, identify the gap in knowledge or understanding that your research aims to address. This gap will be the focus of your research question or hypothesis.

State Objectives

Clearly state the objectives of your research . These should be specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART).

Discuss Significance

Explain the significance of your research. This could include its potential impact on theory , practice, policy, or society.

Finally, summarize the key points of the background of the study. This will help the reader understand the research problem, its context, and its significance.

How to Write Background of The Study in Proposal

The background of the study is an essential part of any proposal as it sets the stage for the research project and provides the context and justification for why the research is needed. Here are the steps to write a compelling background of the study in your proposal:

• Identify the problem: Clearly state the research problem or gap in the current knowledge that you intend to address through your research.
• Provide context: Provide a brief overview of the research area and highlight its significance in the field.
• Review literature: Summarize the relevant literature related to the research problem and provide a critical evaluation of the current state of knowledge.
• Identify gaps : Identify the gaps or limitations in the existing literature and explain how your research will contribute to filling these gaps.
• Justify the study : Explain why your research is important and what practical or theoretical contributions it can make to the field.
• Highlight objectives: Clearly state the objectives of the study and how they relate to the research problem.
• Discuss methodology: Provide an overview of the methodology you will use to collect and analyze data, and explain why it is appropriate for the research problem.
• Conclude : Summarize the key points of the background of the study and explain how they support your research proposal.

How to Write Background of The Study In Thesis

The background of the study is a critical component of a thesis as it provides context for the research problem, rationale for conducting the study, and the significance of the research. Here are some steps to help you write a strong background of the study:

• Identify the research problem : Start by identifying the research problem that your thesis is addressing. What is the issue that you are trying to solve or explore? Be specific and concise in your problem statement.
• Review the literature: Conduct a thorough review of the relevant literature on the topic. This should include scholarly articles, books, and other sources that are directly related to your research question.
• I dentify gaps in the literature: After reviewing the literature, identify any gaps in the existing research. What questions remain unanswered? What areas have not been explored? This will help you to establish the need for your research.
• Establish the significance of the research: Clearly state the significance of your research. Why is it important to address this research problem? What are the potential implications of your research? How will it contribute to the field?
• Provide an overview of the research design: Provide an overview of the research design and methodology that you will be using in your study. This should include a brief explanation of the research approach, data collection methods, and data analysis techniques.
• State the research objectives and research questions: Clearly state the research objectives and research questions that your study aims to answer. These should be specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound.
• Summarize the chapter: Summarize the chapter by highlighting the key points and linking them back to the research problem, significance of the study, and research questions.

How to Write Background of The Study in Research Paper

Here are the steps to write the background of the study in a research paper:

• Identify the research problem: Start by identifying the research problem that your study aims to address. This can be a particular issue, a gap in the literature, or a need for further investigation.
• Conduct a literature review: Conduct a thorough literature review to gather information on the topic, identify existing studies, and understand the current state of research. This will help you identify the gap in the literature that your study aims to fill.
• Explain the significance of the study: Explain why your study is important and why it is necessary. This can include the potential impact on the field, the importance to society, or the need to address a particular issue.
• Provide context: Provide context for the research problem by discussing the broader social, economic, or political context that the study is situated in. This can help the reader understand the relevance of the study and its potential implications.
• State the research questions and objectives: State the research questions and objectives that your study aims to address. This will help the reader understand the scope of the study and its purpose.
• Summarize the methodology : Briefly summarize the methodology you used to conduct the study, including the data collection and analysis methods. This can help the reader understand how the study was conducted and its reliability.

Examples of Background of The Study

Here are some examples of the background of the study:

Problem : The prevalence of obesity among children in the United States has reached alarming levels, with nearly one in five children classified as obese.

Significance : Obesity in childhood is associated with numerous negative health outcomes, including increased risk of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and certain cancers.

Gap in knowledge : Despite efforts to address the obesity epidemic, rates continue to rise. There is a need for effective interventions that target the unique needs of children and their families.

Problem : The use of antibiotics in agriculture has contributed to the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, which poses a significant threat to human health.

Significance : Antibiotic-resistant infections are responsible for thousands of deaths each year and are a major public health concern.

Gap in knowledge: While there is a growing body of research on the use of antibiotics in agriculture, there is still much to be learned about the mechanisms of resistance and the most effective strategies for reducing antibiotic use.

Edxample 3:

Problem : Many low-income communities lack access to healthy food options, leading to high rates of food insecurity and diet-related diseases.

Significance : Poor nutrition is a major contributor to chronic diseases such as obesity, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease.

Gap in knowledge : While there have been efforts to address food insecurity, there is a need for more research on the barriers to accessing healthy food in low-income communities and effective strategies for increasing access.

Examples of Background of The Study In Research

Here are some real-life examples of how the background of the study can be written in different fields of study:

Example 1 : “There has been a significant increase in the incidence of diabetes in recent years. This has led to an increased demand for effective diabetes management strategies. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of a new diabetes management program in improving patient outcomes.”

Example 2 : “The use of social media has become increasingly prevalent in modern society. Despite its popularity, little is known about the effects of social media use on mental health. This study aims to investigate the relationship between social media use and mental health in young adults.”

Example 3: “Despite significant advancements in cancer treatment, the survival rate for patients with pancreatic cancer remains low. The purpose of this study is to identify potential biomarkers that can be used to improve early detection and treatment of pancreatic cancer.”

Examples of Background of The Study in Proposal

Here are some real-time examples of the background of the study in a proposal:

Example 1 : The prevalence of mental health issues among university students has been increasing over the past decade. This study aims to investigate the causes and impacts of mental health issues on academic performance and wellbeing.

Example 2 : Climate change is a global issue that has significant implications for agriculture in developing countries. This study aims to examine the adaptive capacity of smallholder farmers to climate change and identify effective strategies to enhance their resilience.

Example 3 : The use of social media in political campaigns has become increasingly common in recent years. This study aims to analyze the effectiveness of social media campaigns in mobilizing young voters and influencing their voting behavior.

Example 4 : Employee turnover is a major challenge for organizations, especially in the service sector. This study aims to identify the key factors that influence employee turnover in the hospitality industry and explore effective strategies for reducing turnover rates.

Examples of Background of The Study in Thesis

Here are some real-time examples of the background of the study in the thesis:

Example 1 : “Women’s participation in the workforce has increased significantly over the past few decades. However, women continue to be underrepresented in leadership positions, particularly in male-dominated industries such as technology. This study aims to examine the factors that contribute to the underrepresentation of women in leadership roles in the technology industry, with a focus on organizational culture and gender bias.”

Example 2 : “Mental health is a critical component of overall health and well-being. Despite increased awareness of the importance of mental health, there are still significant gaps in access to mental health services, particularly in low-income and rural communities. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a community-based mental health intervention in improving mental health outcomes in underserved populations.”

Example 3: “The use of technology in education has become increasingly widespread, with many schools adopting online learning platforms and digital resources. However, there is limited research on the impact of technology on student learning outcomes and engagement. This study aims to explore the relationship between technology use and academic achievement among middle school students, as well as the factors that mediate this relationship.”

Examples of Background of The Study in Research Paper

Here are some examples of how the background of the study can be written in various fields:

Example 1: The prevalence of obesity has been on the rise globally, with the World Health Organization reporting that approximately 650 million adults were obese in 2016. Obesity is a major risk factor for several chronic diseases such as diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and cancer. In recent years, several interventions have been proposed to address this issue, including lifestyle changes, pharmacotherapy, and bariatric surgery. However, there is a lack of consensus on the most effective intervention for obesity management. This study aims to investigate the efficacy of different interventions for obesity management and identify the most effective one.

Example 2: Antibiotic resistance has become a major public health threat worldwide. Infections caused by antibiotic-resistant bacteria are associated with longer hospital stays, higher healthcare costs, and increased mortality. The inappropriate use of antibiotics is one of the main factors contributing to the development of antibiotic resistance. Despite numerous efforts to promote the rational use of antibiotics, studies have shown that many healthcare providers continue to prescribe antibiotics inappropriately. This study aims to explore the factors influencing healthcare providers’ prescribing behavior and identify strategies to improve antibiotic prescribing practices.

Example 3: Social media has become an integral part of modern communication, with millions of people worldwide using platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. Social media has several advantages, including facilitating communication, connecting people, and disseminating information. However, social media use has also been associated with several negative outcomes, including cyberbullying, addiction, and mental health problems. This study aims to investigate the impact of social media use on mental health and identify the factors that mediate this relationship.

Purpose of Background of The Study

The primary purpose of the background of the study is to help the reader understand the rationale for the research by presenting the historical, theoretical, and empirical background of the problem.

More specifically, the background of the study aims to:

• Provide a clear understanding of the research problem and its context.
• Identify the gap in knowledge that the study intends to fill.
• Establish the significance of the research problem and its potential contribution to the field.
• Highlight the key concepts, theories, and research findings related to the problem.
• Provide a rationale for the research questions or hypotheses and the research design.
• Identify the limitations and scope of the study.

When to Write Background of The Study

The background of the study should be written early on in the research process, ideally before the research design is finalized and data collection begins. This allows the researcher to clearly articulate the rationale for the study and establish a strong foundation for the research.

The background of the study typically comes after the introduction but before the literature review section. It should provide an overview of the research problem and its context, and also introduce the key concepts, theories, and research findings related to the problem.

Writing the background of the study early on in the research process also helps to identify potential gaps in knowledge and areas for further investigation, which can guide the development of the research questions or hypotheses and the research design. By establishing the significance of the research problem and its potential contribution to the field, the background of the study can also help to justify the research and secure funding or support from stakeholders.

Advantage of Background of The Study

The background of the study has several advantages, including:

• Provides context: The background of the study provides context for the research problem by highlighting the historical, theoretical, and empirical background of the problem. This allows the reader to understand the research problem in its broader context and appreciate its significance.
• Identifies gaps in knowledge: By reviewing the existing literature related to the research problem, the background of the study can identify gaps in knowledge that the study intends to fill. This helps to establish the novelty and originality of the research and its potential contribution to the field.
• Justifies the research : The background of the study helps to justify the research by demonstrating its significance and potential impact. This can be useful in securing funding or support for the research.
• Guides the research design: The background of the study can guide the development of the research questions or hypotheses and the research design by identifying key concepts, theories, and research findings related to the problem. This ensures that the research is grounded in existing knowledge and is designed to address the research problem effectively.
• Establishes credibility: By demonstrating the researcher’s knowledge of the field and the research problem, the background of the study can establish the researcher’s credibility and expertise, which can enhance the trustworthiness and validity of the research.

Disadvantages of Background of The Study

Some Disadvantages of Background of The Study are as follows:

• Time-consuming : Writing a comprehensive background of the study can be time-consuming, especially if the research problem is complex and multifaceted. This can delay the research process and impact the timeline for completing the study.
• Repetitive: The background of the study can sometimes be repetitive, as it often involves summarizing existing research and theories related to the research problem. This can be tedious for the reader and may make the section less engaging.
• Limitations of existing research: The background of the study can reveal the limitations of existing research related to the problem. This can create challenges for the researcher in developing research questions or hypotheses that address the gaps in knowledge identified in the background of the study.
• Bias : The researcher’s biases and perspectives can influence the content and tone of the background of the study. This can impact the reader’s perception of the research problem and may influence the validity of the research.
• Accessibility: Accessing and reviewing the literature related to the research problem can be challenging, especially if the researcher does not have access to a comprehensive database or if the literature is not available in the researcher’s language. This can limit the depth and scope of the background of the study.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Research Project – Definition, Writing Guide and...

Research Paper Conclusion – Writing Guide and...

Evaluating Research – Process, Examples and...

Research Problem – Examples, Types and Guide

Research Approach – Types Methods and Examples

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

• Choosing a Title
• Purpose of Guide
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Independent and Dependent Variables
• Glossary of Research Terms
• Reading Research Effectively
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
• Academic Writing Style
• Applying Critical Thinking
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• Research Process Video Series
• Executive Summary
• The C.A.R.S. Model
• Background Information
• The Research Problem/Question
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tiertiary Sources
• Scholarly vs. Popular Publications
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Insiderness
• Using Non-Textual Elements
• Limitations of the Study
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Writing Concisely
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Generative AI and Writing
• USC Libraries Tutorials and Other Guides
• Bibliography

The title summarizes the main idea or ideas of your study. A good title contains the fewest possible words needed to adequately describe the content and/or purpose of your research paper.

Importance of Choosing a Good Title

The title is the part of a paper that is read the most, and it is usually read first . It is, therefore, the most important element that defines the research study. With this in mind, avoid the following when creating a title:

• If the title is too long, this usually indicates there are too many unnecessary words. Avoid language, such as, "A Study to Investigate the...," or "An Examination of the...." These phrases are obvious and generally superfluous unless they are necessary to covey the scope, intent, or type of a study.
• On the other hand, a title which is too short often uses words which are too broad and, thus, does not tell the reader what is being studied. For example, a paper with the title, "African Politics" is so non-specific the title could be the title of a book and so ambiguous that it could refer to anything associated with politics in Africa. A good title should provide information about the focus and/or scope of your research study.
• In academic writing, catchy phrases or non-specific language may be used, but only if it's within the context of the study [e.g., "Fair and Impartial Jury--Catch as Catch Can"]. However, in most cases, you should avoid including words or phrases that do not help the reader understand the purpose of your paper.
• Academic writing is a serious and deliberate endeavor. Avoid using humorous or clever journalistic styles of phrasing when creating the title to your paper. Journalistic headlines often use emotional adjectives [e.g., incredible, amazing, effortless] to highlight a problem experienced by the reader or use "trigger words" or interrogative words like how, what, when, or why to persuade people to read the article or click on a link. These approaches are viewed as counter-productive in academic writing. A reader does not need clever or humorous titles to catch their attention because the act of reading research is assumed to be deliberate based on a desire to learn and improve understanding of the problem. In addition, a humorous title can merely detract from the seriousness and authority of your research. 
• Unlike everywhere else in a college-level social sciences research paper [except when using direct quotes in the text], titles do not have to adhere to rigid grammatical or stylistic standards. For example, it could be appropriate to begin a title with a coordinating conjunction [i.e., and, but, or, nor, for, so, yet] if it makes sense to do so and does not detract from the purpose of the study [e.g., "Yet Another Look at Mutual Fund Tournaments"] or beginning the title with an inflected form of a verb such as those ending in -ing [e.g., "Assessing the Political Landscape: Structure, Cognition, and Power in Organizations"].

Appiah, Kingsley Richard et al. “Structural Organisation of Research Article Titles: A Comparative Study of Titles of Business, Gynaecology and Law.” Advances in Language and Literary Studies 10 (2019); Hartley James. “To Attract or to Inform: What are Titles for?” Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 35 (2005): 203-213; Jaakkola, Maarit. “Journalistic Writing and Style.” In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication . Jon F. Nussbaum, editor. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2018): https://oxfordre.com/communication.

Structure and Writing Style

The following parameters can be used to help you formulate a suitable research paper title:

• The purpose of the research
• The scope of the research
• The narrative tone of the paper [typically defined by the type of the research]
• The methods used to study the problem

The initial aim of a title is to capture the reader’s attention and to highlight the research problem under investigation.

Create a Working Title Typically, the final title you submit to your professor is created after the research is complete so that the title accurately captures what has been done . The working title should be developed early in the research process because it can help anchor the focus of the study in much the same way the research problem does. Referring back to the working title can help you reorient yourself back to the main purpose of the study if you find yourself drifting off on a tangent while writing. The Final Title Effective titles in research papers have several characteristics that reflect general principles of academic writing.

• Indicate accurately the subject and scope of the study,
• Rarely use abbreviations or acronyms unless they are commonly known,
• Use words that create a positive impression and stimulate reader interest,
• Use current nomenclature from the field of study,
• Identify key variables, both dependent and independent,
• Reveal how the paper will be organized,
• Suggest a relationship between variables which supports the major hypothesis,
• Is limited to 5 to 15 substantive words,
• Does not include redundant phrasing, such as, "A Study of," "An Analysis of" or similar constructions,
• Takes the form of a question or declarative statement,
• If you use a quote as part of the title, the source of the quote is cited [usually using an asterisk and footnote],
• Use correct grammar and capitalization with all first words and last words capitalized, including the first word of a subtitle. All nouns, pronouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs that appear between the first and last words of the title are also capitalized, and
• Rarely uses an exclamation mark at the end of the title.

The Subtitle Subtitles are frequently used in social sciences research papers because it helps the reader understand the scope of the study in relation to how it was designed to address the research problem. Think about what type of subtitle listed below reflects the overall approach to your study and whether you believe a subtitle is needed to emphasize the investigative parameters of your research.

1.  Explains or provides additional context , e.g., "Linguistic Ethnography and the Study of Welfare Institutions as a Flow of Social Practices: The Case of Residential Child Care Institutions as Paradoxical Institutions." [Palomares, Manuel and David Poveda.  Text & Talk: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language, Discourse and Communication Studies 30 (January 2010): 193-212]

2.  Adds substance to a literary, provocative, or imaginative title or quote , e.g., "Listen to What I Say, Not How I Vote": Congressional Support for the President in Washington and at Home." [Grose, Christian R. and Keesha M. Middlemass. Social Science Quarterly 91 (March 2010): 143-167]

3.  Qualifies the geographic scope of the research , e.g., "The Geopolitics of the Eastern Border of the European Union: The Case of Romania-Moldova-Ukraine." [Marcu, Silvia. Geopolitics 14 (August 2009): 409-432]

4.  Qualifies the temporal scope of the research , e.g., "A Comparison of the Progressive Era and the Depression Years: Societal Influences on Predictions of the Future of the Library, 1895-1940." [Grossman, Hal B. Libraries & the Cultural Record 46 (2011): 102-128]

5.  Focuses on investigating the ideas, theories, or work of a particular individual , e.g., "A Deliberative Conception of Politics: How Francesco Saverio Merlino Related Anarchy and Democracy." [La Torre, Massimo. Sociologia del Diritto 28 (January 2001): 75 - 98]

6.  Identifies the methodology used , e.g. "Student Activism of the 1960s Revisited: A Multivariate Analysis Research Note." [Aron, William S. Social Forces 52 (March 1974): 408-414]

7.  Defines the overarching technique for analyzing the research problem , e.g., "Explaining Territorial Change in Federal Democracies: A Comparative Historical Institutionalist Approach." [ Tillin, Louise. Political Studies 63 (August 2015): 626-641.

With these examples in mind, think about what type of subtitle reflects the overall approach to your study. This will help the reader understand the scope of the study in relation to how it was designed to address the research problem.

Anstey, A. “Writing Style: What's in a Title?” British Journal of Dermatology 170 (May 2014): 1003-1004; Balch, Tucker. How to Compose a Title for Your Research Paper. Augmented Trader blog. School of Interactive Computing, Georgia Tech University; Bavdekar, Sandeep B. “Formulating the Right Title for a Research Article.” Journal of Association of Physicians of India 64 (February 2016); Choosing the Proper Research Paper Titles. AplusReports.com, 2007-2012; Eva, Kevin W. “Titles, Abstracts, and Authors.” In How to Write a Paper . George M. Hall, editor. 5th edition. (Oxford: John Wiley and Sons, 2013), pp. 33-41; Hartley James. “To Attract or to Inform: What are Titles for?” Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 35 (2005): 203-213; General Format. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Kerkut G.A. “Choosing a Title for a Paper.” Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A: Physiology 74 (1983): 1; “Tempting Titles.” In Stylish Academic Writing . Helen Sword, editor. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2012), pp. 63-75; Nundy, Samiran, et al. “How to Choose a Title?” In How to Practice Academic Medicine and Publish from Developing Countries? A Practical Guide . Edited by Samiran Nundy, Atul Kakar, and Zulfiqar A. Bhutta. (Springer Singapore, 2022), pp. 185-192.

• << Previous: Applying Critical Thinking
• Next: Making an Outline >>
• Last Updated: Jul 3, 2024 10:07 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Saudi J Anaesth
• v.13(Suppl 1); 2019 Apr

Writing the title and abstract for a research paper: Being concise, precise, and meticulous is the key

Milind s. tullu.

Department of Pediatrics, Seth G.S. Medical College and KEM Hospital, Parel, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

This article deals with formulating a suitable title and an appropriate abstract for an original research paper. The “title” and the “abstract” are the “initial impressions” of a research article, and hence they need to be drafted correctly, accurately, carefully, and meticulously. Often both of these are drafted after the full manuscript is ready. Most readers read only the title and the abstract of a research paper and very few will go on to read the full paper. The title and the abstract are the most important parts of a research paper and should be pleasant to read. The “title” should be descriptive, direct, accurate, appropriate, interesting, concise, precise, unique, and should not be misleading. The “abstract” needs to be simple, specific, clear, unbiased, honest, concise, precise, stand-alone, complete, scholarly, (preferably) structured, and should not be misrepresentative. The abstract should be consistent with the main text of the paper, especially after a revision is made to the paper and should include the key message prominently. It is very important to include the most important words and terms (the “keywords”) in the title and the abstract for appropriate indexing purpose and for retrieval from the search engines and scientific databases. Such keywords should be listed after the abstract. One must adhere to the instructions laid down by the target journal with regard to the style and number of words permitted for the title and the abstract.

Introduction

This article deals with drafting a suitable “title” and an appropriate “abstract” for an original research paper. Because the “title” and the “abstract” are the “initial impressions” or the “face” of a research article, they need to be drafted correctly, accurately, carefully, meticulously, and consume time and energy.[ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 ] Often, these are drafted after the complete manuscript draft is ready.[ 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 9 , 10 , 11 ] Most readers will read only the title and the abstract of a published research paper, and very few “interested ones” (especially, if the paper is of use to them) will go on to read the full paper.[ 1 , 2 ] One must remember to adhere to the instructions laid down by the “target journal” (the journal for which the author is writing) regarding the style and number of words permitted for the title and the abstract.[ 2 , 4 , 5 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 12 ] Both the title and the abstract are the most important parts of a research paper – for editors (to decide whether to process the paper for further review), for reviewers (to get an initial impression of the paper), and for the readers (as these may be the only parts of the paper available freely and hence, read widely).[ 4 , 8 , 12 ] It may be worth for the novice author to browse through titles and abstracts of several prominent journals (and their target journal as well) to learn more about the wording and styles of the titles and abstracts, as well as the aims and scope of the particular journal.[ 5 , 7 , 9 , 13 ]

The details of the title are discussed under the subheadings of importance, types, drafting, and checklist.

Importance of the title

When a reader browses through the table of contents of a journal issue (hard copy or on website), the title is the “ first detail” or “face” of the paper that is read.[ 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 13 ] Hence, it needs to be simple, direct, accurate, appropriate, specific, functional, interesting, attractive/appealing, concise/brief, precise/focused, unambiguous, memorable, captivating, informative (enough to encourage the reader to read further), unique, catchy, and it should not be misleading.[ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 9 , 12 ] It should have “just enough details” to arouse the interest and curiosity of the reader so that the reader then goes ahead with studying the abstract and then (if still interested) the full paper.[ 1 , 2 , 4 , 13 ] Journal websites, electronic databases, and search engines use the words in the title and abstract (the “keywords”) to retrieve a particular paper during a search; hence, the importance of these words in accessing the paper by the readers has been emphasized.[ 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 12 , 14 ] Such important words (or keywords) should be arranged in appropriate order of importance as per the context of the paper and should be placed at the beginning of the title (rather than the later part of the title, as some search engines like Google may just display only the first six to seven words of the title).[ 3 , 5 , 12 ] Whimsical, amusing, or clever titles, though initially appealing, may be missed or misread by the busy reader and very short titles may miss the essential scientific words (the “keywords”) used by the indexing agencies to catch and categorize the paper.[ 1 , 3 , 4 , 9 ] Also, amusing or hilarious titles may be taken less seriously by the readers and may be cited less often.[ 4 , 15 ] An excessively long or complicated title may put off the readers.[ 3 , 9 ] It may be a good idea to draft the title after the main body of the text and the abstract are drafted.[ 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ]

Types of titles

Titles can be descriptive, declarative, or interrogative. They can also be classified as nominal, compound, or full-sentence titles.

Descriptive or neutral title

This has the essential elements of the research theme, that is, the patients/subjects, design, interventions, comparisons/control, and outcome, but does not reveal the main result or the conclusion.[ 3 , 4 , 12 , 16 ] Such a title allows the reader to interpret the findings of the research paper in an impartial manner and with an open mind.[ 3 ] These titles also give complete information about the contents of the article, have several keywords (thus increasing the visibility of the article in search engines), and have increased chances of being read and (then) being cited as well.[ 4 ] Hence, such descriptive titles giving a glimpse of the paper are generally preferred.[ 4 , 16 ]

Declarative title

This title states the main finding of the study in the title itself; it reduces the curiosity of the reader, may point toward a bias on the part of the author, and hence is best avoided.[ 3 , 4 , 12 , 16 ]

Interrogative title

This is the one which has a query or the research question in the title.[ 3 , 4 , 16 ] Though a query in the title has the ability to sensationalize the topic, and has more downloads (but less citations), it can be distracting to the reader and is again best avoided for a research article (but can, at times, be used for a review article).[ 3 , 6 , 16 , 17 ]

From a sentence construct point of view, titles may be nominal (capturing only the main theme of the study), compound (with subtitles to provide additional relevant information such as context, design, location/country, temporal aspect, sample size, importance, and a provocative or a literary; for example, see the title of this review), or full-sentence titles (which are longer and indicate an added degree of certainty of the results).[ 4 , 6 , 9 , 16 ] Any of these constructs may be used depending on the type of article, the key message, and the author's preference or judgement.[ 4 ]

Drafting a suitable title

A stepwise process can be followed to draft the appropriate title. The author should describe the paper in about three sentences, avoiding the results and ensuring that these sentences contain important scientific words/keywords that describe the main contents and subject of the paper.[ 1 , 4 , 6 , 12 ] Then the author should join the sentences to form a single sentence, shorten the length (by removing redundant words or adjectives or phrases), and finally edit the title (thus drafted) to make it more accurate, concise (about 10–15 words), and precise.[ 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 9 ] Some journals require that the study design be included in the title, and this may be placed (using a colon) after the primary title.[ 2 , 3 , 4 , 14 ] The title should try to incorporate the Patients, Interventions, Comparisons and Outcome (PICO).[ 3 ] The place of the study may be included in the title (if absolutely necessary), that is, if the patient characteristics (such as study population, socioeconomic conditions, or cultural practices) are expected to vary as per the country (or the place of the study) and have a bearing on the possible outcomes.[ 3 , 6 ] Lengthy titles can be boring and appear unfocused, whereas very short titles may not be representative of the contents of the article; hence, optimum length is required to ensure that the title explains the main theme and content of the manuscript.[ 4 , 5 , 9 ] Abbreviations (except the standard or commonly interpreted ones such as HIV, AIDS, DNA, RNA, CDC, FDA, ECG, and EEG) or acronyms should be avoided in the title, as a reader not familiar with them may skip such an article and nonstandard abbreviations may create problems in indexing the article.[ 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 9 , 12 ] Also, too much of technical jargon or chemical formulas in the title may confuse the readers and the article may be skipped by them.[ 4 , 9 ] Numerical values of various parameters (stating study period or sample size) should also be avoided in the titles (unless deemed extremely essential).[ 4 ] It may be worthwhile to take an opinion from a impartial colleague before finalizing the title.[ 4 , 5 , 6 ] Thus, multiple factors (which are, at times, a bit conflicting or contrasting) need to be considered while formulating a title, and hence this should not be done in a hurry.[ 4 , 6 ] Many journals ask the authors to draft a “short title” or “running head” or “running title” for printing in the header or footer of the printed paper.[ 3 , 12 ] This is an abridged version of the main title of up to 40–50 characters, may have standard abbreviations, and helps the reader to navigate through the paper.[ 3 , 12 , 14 ]

Checklist for a good title

Table 1 gives a checklist/useful tips for drafting a good title for a research paper.[ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 12 ] Table 2 presents some of the titles used by the author of this article in his earlier research papers, and the appropriateness of the titles has been commented upon. As an individual exercise, the reader may try to improvise upon the titles (further) after reading the corresponding abstract and full paper.

Checklist/useful tips for drafting a good title for a research paper

Some titles used by author of this article in his earlier publications and remark/comment on their appropriateness

The Abstract

The details of the abstract are discussed under the subheadings of importance, types, drafting, and checklist.

Importance of the abstract

The abstract is a summary or synopsis of the full research paper and also needs to have similar characteristics like the title. It needs to be simple, direct, specific, functional, clear, unbiased, honest, concise, precise, self-sufficient, complete, comprehensive, scholarly, balanced, and should not be misleading.[ 1 , 2 , 3 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 13 , 17 ] Writing an abstract is to extract and summarize (AB – absolutely, STR – straightforward, ACT – actual data presentation and interpretation).[ 17 ] The title and abstracts are the only sections of the research paper that are often freely available to the readers on the journal websites, search engines, and in many abstracting agencies/databases, whereas the full paper may attract a payment per view or a fee for downloading the pdf copy.[ 1 , 2 , 3 , 7 , 8 , 10 , 11 , 13 , 14 ] The abstract is an independent and stand-alone (that is, well understood without reading the full paper) section of the manuscript and is used by the editor to decide the fate of the article and to choose appropriate reviewers.[ 2 , 7 , 10 , 12 , 13 ] Even the reviewers are initially supplied only with the title and the abstract before they agree to review the full manuscript.[ 7 , 13 ] This is the second most commonly read part of the manuscript, and therefore it should reflect the contents of the main text of the paper accurately and thus act as a “real trailer” of the full article.[ 2 , 7 , 11 ] The readers will go through the full paper only if they find the abstract interesting and relevant to their practice; else they may skip the paper if the abstract is unimpressive.[ 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 13 ] The abstract needs to highlight the selling point of the manuscript and succeed in luring the reader to read the complete paper.[ 3 , 7 ] The title and the abstract should be constructed using keywords (key terms/important words) from all the sections of the main text.[ 12 ] Abstracts are also used for submitting research papers to a conference for consideration for presentation (as oral paper or poster).[ 9 , 13 , 17 ] Grammatical and typographic errors reflect poorly on the quality of the abstract, may indicate carelessness/casual attitude on part of the author, and hence should be avoided at all times.[ 9 ]

Types of abstracts

The abstracts can be structured or unstructured. They can also be classified as descriptive or informative abstracts.

Structured and unstructured abstracts

Structured abstracts are followed by most journals, are more informative, and include specific subheadings/subsections under which the abstract needs to be composed.[ 1 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 13 , 17 , 18 ] These subheadings usually include context/background, objectives, design, setting, participants, interventions, main outcome measures, results, and conclusions.[ 1 ] Some journals stick to the standard IMRAD format for the structure of the abstracts, and the subheadings would include Introduction/Background, Methods, Results, And (instead of Discussion) the Conclusion/s.[ 1 , 2 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 17 , 18 ] Structured abstracts are more elaborate, informative, easy to read, recall, and peer-review, and hence are preferred; however, they consume more space and can have same limitations as an unstructured abstract.[ 7 , 9 , 18 ] The structured abstracts are (possibly) better understood by the reviewers and readers. Anyway, the choice of the type of the abstract and the subheadings of a structured abstract depend on the particular journal style and is not left to the author's wish.[ 7 , 10 , 12 ] Separate subheadings may be necessary for reporting meta-analysis, educational research, quality improvement work, review, or case study.[ 1 ] Clinical trial abstracts need to include the essential items mentioned in the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials) guidelines.[ 7 , 9 , 14 , 19 ] Similar guidelines exist for various other types of studies, including observational studies and for studies of diagnostic accuracy.[ 20 , 21 ] A useful resource for the above guidelines is available at www.equator-network.org (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research). Unstructured (or non-structured) abstracts are free-flowing, do not have predefined subheadings, and are commonly used for papers that (usually) do not describe original research.[ 1 , 7 , 9 , 10 ]

The four-point structured abstract: This has the following elements which need to be properly balanced with regard to the content/matter under each subheading:[ 9 ]

Background and/or Objectives: This states why the work was undertaken and is usually written in just a couple of sentences.[ 3 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 12 , 13 ] The hypothesis/study question and the major objectives are also stated under this subheading.[ 3 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 12 , 13 ]

Methods: This subsection is the longest, states what was done, and gives essential details of the study design, setting, participants, blinding, sample size, sampling method, intervention/s, duration and follow-up, research instruments, main outcome measures, parameters evaluated, and how the outcomes were assessed or analyzed.[ 3 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 17 ]

Results/Observations/Findings: This subheading states what was found, is longer, is difficult to draft, and needs to mention important details including the number of study participants, results of analysis (of primary and secondary objectives), and include actual data (numbers, mean, median, standard deviation, “P” values, 95% confidence intervals, effect sizes, relative risks, odds ratio, etc.).[ 3 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 17 ]

Conclusions: The take-home message (the “so what” of the paper) and other significant/important findings should be stated here, considering the interpretation of the research question/hypothesis and results put together (without overinterpreting the findings) and may also include the author's views on the implications of the study.[ 3 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 17 ]

The eight-point structured abstract: This has the following eight subheadings – Objectives, Study Design, Study Setting, Participants/Patients, Methods/Intervention, Outcome Measures, Results, and Conclusions.[ 3 , 9 , 18 ] The instructions to authors given by the particular journal state whether they use the four- or eight-point abstract or variants thereof.[ 3 , 14 ]

Descriptive and Informative abstracts

Descriptive abstracts are short (75–150 words), only portray what the paper contains without providing any more details; the reader has to read the full paper to know about its contents and are rarely used for original research papers.[ 7 , 10 ] These are used for case reports, reviews, opinions, and so on.[ 7 , 10 ] Informative abstracts (which may be structured or unstructured as described above) give a complete detailed summary of the article contents and truly reflect the actual research done.[ 7 , 10 ]

Drafting a suitable abstract

It is important to religiously stick to the instructions to authors (format, word limit, font size/style, and subheadings) provided by the journal for which the abstract and the paper are being written.[ 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 13 ] Most journals allow 200–300 words for formulating the abstract and it is wise to restrict oneself to this word limit.[ 1 , 2 , 3 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 22 ] Though some authors prefer to draft the abstract initially, followed by the main text of the paper, it is recommended to draft the abstract in the end to maintain accuracy and conformity with the main text of the paper (thus maintaining an easy linkage/alignment with title, on one hand, and the introduction section of the main text, on the other hand).[ 2 , 7 , 9 , 10 , 11 ] The authors should check the subheadings (of the structured abstract) permitted by the target journal, use phrases rather than sentences to draft the content of the abstract, and avoid passive voice.[ 1 , 7 , 9 , 12 ] Next, the authors need to get rid of redundant words and edit the abstract (extensively) to the correct word count permitted (every word in the abstract “counts”!).[ 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 13 ] It is important to ensure that the key message, focus, and novelty of the paper are not compromised; the rationale of the study and the basis of the conclusions are clear; and that the abstract is consistent with the main text of the paper.[ 1 , 2 , 3 , 7 , 9 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 17 , 22 ] This is especially important while submitting a revision of the paper (modified after addressing the reviewer's comments), as the changes made in the main (revised) text of the paper need to be reflected in the (revised) abstract as well.[ 2 , 10 , 12 , 14 , 22 ] Abbreviations should be avoided in an abstract, unless they are conventionally accepted or standard; references, tables, or figures should not be cited in the abstract.[ 7 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 13 ] It may be worthwhile not to rush with the abstract and to get an opinion by an impartial colleague on the content of the abstract; and if possible, the full paper (an “informal” peer-review).[ 1 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 11 , 17 ] Appropriate “Keywords” (three to ten words or phrases) should follow the abstract and should be preferably chosen from the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) list of the U.S. National Library of Medicine ( https://meshb.nlm.nih.gov/search ) and are used for indexing purposes.[ 2 , 3 , 11 , 12 ] These keywords need to be different from the words in the main title (the title words are automatically used for indexing the article) and can be variants of the terms/phrases used in the title, or words from the abstract and the main text.[ 3 , 12 ] The ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors; http://www.icmje.org/ ) also recommends publishing the clinical trial registration number at the end of the abstract.[ 7 , 14 ]

Checklist for a good abstract

Table 3 gives a checklist/useful tips for formulating a good abstract for a research paper.[ 1 , 2 , 3 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 17 , 22 ]

Checklist/useful tips for formulating a good abstract for a research paper

Concluding Remarks

This review article has given a detailed account of the importance and types of titles and abstracts. It has also attempted to give useful hints for drafting an appropriate title and a complete abstract for a research paper. It is hoped that this review will help the authors in their career in medical writing.

Financial support and sponsorship

Conflicts of interest.

There are no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgement

The author thanks Dr. Hemant Deshmukh - Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College & KEM Hospital, for granting permission to publish this manuscript.

• Translation

Writing the Significance of a Study

By charlesworth author services.

• Charlesworth Author Services
• 20 July, 2022

The significance of a study is its importance . It refers to the contribution(s) to and impact of the study on a research field. The significance also signals who benefits from the research findings and how.

Purpose of writing the significance of a study

A study’s significance should spark the interest of the reader. Researchers will be able to appreciate your work better when they understand the relevance and its (potential) impact. Peer reviewers also assess the significance of the work, which will influence the decision made (acceptance/rejection) on the manuscript. 

Sections in which the significance of the study is written

Introduction.

In the Introduction of your paper, the significance appears where you talk about the potential importance and impact of the study. It should flow naturally from the problem , aims and objectives, and rationale .

The significance is described in more detail in the concluding paragraph(s) of the Discussion or the dedicated Conclusions section. Here, you put the findings into perspective and outline the contributions of the findings in terms of implications and applications.

The significance may or may not appear in the abstract . When it does, it is written in the concluding lines of the abstract.

Significance vs. other introductory elements of your paper

In the Introduction…

• The problem statement outlines the concern that needs to be addressed.
• The research aim describes the purpose of the study.
• The objectives indicate how that aim will be achieved.
• The rationale explains why you are performing the study.
• The significance tells the reader how the findings affect the topic/broad field. In other words, the significance is about how much the findings matter.

How to write the significance of the study

A good significance statement may be written in different ways. The approach to writing it also depends on the study area. In the arts and humanities , the significance statement might be longer and more descriptive. In applied sciences , it might be more direct.

a. Suggested sequence for writing the significance statement

• Think of the gaps your study is setting out to address.
• Look at your research from general and specific angles in terms of its (potential) contribution .
• Once you have these points ready, start writing them, connecting them to your study as a whole.

b. Some ways to begin your statement(s) of significance

Here are some opening lines to build on:

• The particular significance of this study lies in the… 
• We argue that this study moves the field forward because…
• This study makes some important contributions to…
• Our findings deepen the current understanding about…

c. Don’ts of writing a significance statement

• Don’t make it too long .
• Don’t repeat any information that has been presented in other sections.
• Don’t overstate or exaggerat e the importance; it should match your actual findings.

Example of significance of a study

Note the significance statements highlighted in the following fictional study.

Significance in the Introduction

The effects of Miyawaki forests on local biodiversity in urban housing complexes remain poorly understood. No formal studies on negative impacts on insect activity, populations or diversity have been undertaken thus far. In this study, we compared the effects that Miyawaki forests in urban dwellings have on local pollinator activity. The findings of this study will help improve the design of this afforestation technique in a way that balances local fauna, particularly pollinators, which are highly sensitive to microclimatic changes.

Significance in the Conclusion

[…] The findings provide valuable insights for guiding and informing Miyawaki afforestation in urban dwellings. We demonstrate that urban planning and landscaping policies need to consider potential declines.

A study’s significance usually appears at the end of the Introduction and in the Conclusion to describe the importance of the research findings. A strong and clear significance statement will pique the interest of readers, as well as that of relevant stakeholders.

Maximise your publication success with Charlesworth Author Services.

Charlesworth Author Services, a trusted brand supporting the world’s leading academic publishers, institutions and authors since 1928.

To know more about our services, visit: Our Services

Share with your colleagues

Scientific Editing Services

Sign up – stay updated.

We use cookies to offer you a personalized experience. By continuing to use this website, you consent to the use of cookies in accordance with our Cookie Policy.

• Link to facebook
• Link to linkedin
• Link to twitter
• Link to youtube
• Writing Tips

How to Discuss the Significance of Your Research

• 6-minute read
• 10th April 2023

Introduction

Research papers can be a real headache for college students . As a student, your research needs to be credible enough to support your thesis statement. You must also ensure you’ve discussed the literature review, findings, and results.

However, it’s also important to discuss the significance of your research . Your potential audience will care deeply about this. It will also help you conduct your research. By knowing the impact of your research, you’ll understand what important questions to answer.

If you’d like to know more about the impact of your research, read on! We’ll talk about why it’s important and how to discuss it in your paper.

What Is the Significance of Research?

This is the potential impact of your research on the field of study. It includes contributions from new knowledge from the research and those who would benefit from it. You should present this before conducting research, so you need to be aware of current issues associated with the thesis before discussing the significance of the research.

Why Does the Significance of Research Matter?

Potential readers need to know why your research is worth pursuing. Discussing the significance of research answers the following questions:

●  Why should people read your research paper ?

●  How will your research contribute to the current knowledge related to your topic?

●  What potential impact will it have on the community and professionals in the field?

Not including the significance of research in your paper would be like a knight trying to fight a dragon without weapons.

Where Do I Discuss the Significance of Research in My Paper?

As previously mentioned, the significance of research comes before you conduct it. Therefore, you should discuss the significance of your research in the Introduction section. Your reader should know the problem statement and hypothesis beforehand.

Steps to Discussing the Significance of Your Research

Discussing the significance of research might seem like a loaded question, so we’ve outlined some steps to help you tackle it.

Step 1: The Research Problem

The problem statement can reveal clues about the outcome of your research. Your research should provide answers to the problem, which is beneficial to all those concerned. For example, imagine the problem statement is, “To what extent do elementary and high school teachers believe cyberbullying affects student performance?”

Learning teachers’ opinions on the effects of cyberbullying on student performance could result in the following:

●  Increased public awareness of cyberbullying in elementary and high schools

●  Teachers’ perceptions of cyberbullying negatively affecting student performance

Find this useful?

Subscribe to our newsletter and get writing tips from our editors straight to your inbox.

●  Whether cyberbullying is more prevalent in elementary or high schools

The research problem will steer your research in the right direction, so it’s best to start with the problem statement.

Step 2: Existing Literature in the Field

Think about current information on your topic, and then find out what information is missing. Are there any areas that haven’t been explored? Your research should add new information to the literature, so be sure to state this in your discussion. You’ll need to know the current literature on your topic anyway, as this is part of your literature review section .

Step 3: Your Research’s Impact on Society

Inform your readers about the impact on society your research could have on it. For example, in the study about teachers’ opinions on cyberbullying, you could mention that your research will educate the community about teachers’ perceptions of cyberbullying as it affects student performance. As a result, the community will know how many teachers believe cyberbullying affects student performance.

You can also mention specific individuals and institutions that would benefit from your study. In the example of cyberbullying, you might indicate that school principals and superintendents would benefit from your research.

Step 4: Future Studies in the Field

Next, discuss how the significance of your research will benefit future studies, which is especially helpful for future researchers in your field. In the example of cyberbullying affecting student performance, your research could provide further opportunities to assess teacher perceptions of cyberbullying and its effects on students from larger populations. This prepares future researchers for data collection and analysis.

Discussing the significance of your research may sound daunting when you haven’t conducted it yet. However, an audience might not read your paper if they don’t know the significance of the research. By focusing on the problem statement and the research benefits to society and future studies, you can convince your audience of the value of your research.

Remember that everything you write doesn’t have to be set in stone. You can go back and tweak the significance of your research after conducting it. At first, you might only include general contributions of your study, but as you research, your contributions will become more specific.

You should have a solid understanding of your topic in general, its associated problems, and the literature review before tackling the significance of your research. However, you’re not trying to prove your thesis statement at this point. The significance of research just convinces the audience that your study is worth reading.

Finally, we always recommend seeking help from your research advisor whenever you’re struggling with ideas. For a more visual idea of how to discuss the significance of your research, we suggest checking out this video .

1. Do I need to do my research before discussing its significance?

No, you’re discussing the significance of your research before you conduct it. However, you should be knowledgeable about your topic and the related literature.

2. Is the significance of research the same as its implications?

No, the research implications are potential questions from your study that justify further exploration, which comes after conducting the research.

 3. Discussing the significance of research seems overwhelming. Where should I start?

We recommend the problem statement as a starting point, which reveals clues to the potential outcome of your research.

4. How can I get feedback on my discussion of the significance of my research?

Our proofreading experts can help. They’ll check your writing for grammar, punctuation errors, spelling, and concision. Submit a 500-word document for free today!

Share this article:

Post A New Comment

Got content that needs a quick turnaround? Let us polish your work. Explore our editorial business services.

9-minute read

How to Use Infographics to Boost Your Presentation

Is your content getting noticed? Capturing and maintaining an audience’s attention is a challenge when...

8-minute read

Why Interactive PDFs Are Better for Engagement

Are you looking to enhance engagement and captivate your audience through your professional documents? Interactive...

7-minute read

Seven Key Strategies for Voice Search Optimization

Voice search optimization is rapidly shaping the digital landscape, requiring content professionals to adapt their...

4-minute read

Five Creative Ways to Showcase Your Digital Portfolio

Are you a creative freelancer looking to make a lasting impression on potential clients or...

How to Ace Slack Messaging for Contractors and Freelancers

Effective professional communication is an important skill for contractors and freelancers navigating remote work environments....

3-minute read

How to Insert a Text Box in a Google Doc

Google Docs is a powerful collaborative tool, and mastering its features can significantly enhance your...

Make sure your writing is the best it can be with our expert English proofreading and editing.

How to Write Significance of the Study in a Project Research Paper

When you write your thesis or research paper, there is a section of your introduction that is allotted to the significance of the study. The purpose of this section is to state why your study was needed and the contribution of your research to your field.

In this guide, you will learn the meaning of the significance of the study in your research paper and how to write one.

What is the Significance of the Study?

The significance of the study is basically a written statement that explains why your research was important. It justifies why your research was needed, the impact of your research in your field, its contribution, and how others (audience) would benefit from it.

Also referred to as the rationale of the study, the significance of the study is important to communicate why your research is important to your reader. It is important to make clear the significance of your study for easy comprehension by the readers.

Tips for writing the significance of the study

Reflect on the Problem Statement When writing this section of your paper, first reflect on what contribution your research is making to your field, the gaps in knowledge in your research field, and why your work should be published.

Your problem statement should be reflected in the introduction of the significance of the study. Your research problem statement can guide you to identify specific contributions your research is making to your field of study.

Write from a general contribution to a specific contribution Write your significance of the study in an inverted pyramid format. Start with your research contribution to society as a whole, and then proceed to narrow it down to a specific individual or group of people.

When writing your statement of study, the length should not be more than 500 words for a thesis and around 200 words for a research paper.

However, note that writing the significance of study depends on your subject area and your content as there is no single way of writing a perfect significance of study.

An Example of Significance of Study

This study's findings will further reveal how management-employee bilateral relationships can be strengthened while improving workplace productivity. The findings would be of major importance in assessing how collective bargaining can be a major tool in improving workplace performance in a developing economy like Nigeria. Collective bargaining would help both management and employees bargain on terms and conditions of service and resolve their grievances without leading to strikes, lock-outs, and other forms of industrial actions. The best approach in negotiating on the bargaining table is to provide employees with the importance of collective bargaining as the best method of settling the industrial conflict, which will improve their productivity and lead to higher organizational performance.

The significance of the study is used in academic writing by students and researchers to communicate the importance of a research problem. This section describes specific contributions made to your field of study and who benefits from it. Also, the extent to which the study matters and its potential benefits to people, researchers, departments and other fields are discussed here. This statement is written at the end of your introduction and should be well attended to.

Significance of a Study: Revisiting the “So What” Question

• Open Access
• First Online: 03 December 2022

Cite this chapter

You have full access to this open access chapter

• James Hiebert 6 ,
• Jinfa Cai 7 ,
• Stephen Hwang 7 ,
• Anne K Morris 6 &
• Charles Hohensee 6  

Part of the book series: Research in Mathematics Education ((RME))

19k Accesses

Every researcher wants their study to matter—to make a positive difference for their professional communities. To ensure your study matters, you can formulate clear hypotheses and choose methods that will test them well, as described in Chaps. 1, 2, 3 and 4. You can go further, however, by considering some of the terms commonly used to describe the importance of studies, terms like significance, contributions, and implications. As you clarify for yourself the meanings of these terms, you learn that whether your study matters depends on how convincingly you can argue for its importance. Perhaps most surprising is that convincing others of its importance rests with the case you make before the data are ever gathered. The importance of your hypotheses should be apparent before you test them. Are your predictions about things the profession cares about? Can you make them with a striking degree of precision? Are the rationales that support them compelling? You are answering the “So what?” question as you formulate hypotheses and design tests of them. This means you can control the answer. You do not need to cross your fingers and hope as you collect data.

You have full access to this open access chapter,  Download chapter PDF

Part I. Setting the Groundwork

One of the most common questions asked of researchers is “So what?” What difference does your study make? Why are the findings important? The “so what” question is one of the most basic questions, often perceived by novice researchers as the most difficult question to answer. Indeed, addressing the “so what” question continues to challenge even experienced researchers. It is not always easy to articulate a convincing argument for the importance of your work. It can be especially difficult to describe its importance without falling into the trap of making claims that reach beyond the data.

That this issue is a challenge for researchers is illustrated by our analysis of reviewer comments for JRME . About one-third of the reviews for manuscripts that were ultimately rejected included concerns about the importance of the study. Said another way, reviewers felt the “So what?” question had not been answered. To paraphrase one journal reviewer, “The manuscript left me unsure of what the contribution of this work to the field’s knowledge is, and therefore I doubt its significance.” We expect this is a frequent concern of reviewers for all research journals.

Our goal in this chapter is to help you navigate the pressing demands of journal reviewers, editors, and readers for demonstrating the importance of your work while staying within the bounds of acceptable claims based on your results. We will begin by reviewing what we have said about these issues in previous chapters. We will then clarify one of the confusing aspects of developing appropriate arguments—the absence of consensus definitions of key terms such as significance, contributions, and implications. Based on the definitions we propose, we will examine the critical role of alignment for realizing the potential significance of your study. Because the importance of your study is communicated through your evolving research paper, we will fold suggestions for writing your paper into the discussion of creating and executing your study.

We laid the groundwork in Chap. 1 for what we consider to be important research in education:

In our view, the ultimate goal of education is to offer all students the best possible learning opportunities. So, we believe the ultimate purpose of scientific inquiry in education is to support the improvement of learning opportunities for all students…. If there is no way to imagine a connection to improving learning opportunities for students, even a distant connection, we recommend you reconsider whether it is an important hypothesis within the education community.

Of course, you might prefer another “ultimate purpose” for research in education. That’s fine. The critical point is that the argument for the importance of the hypotheses you are testing should be connected to the value of a long-term goal you can describe. As long as most of the educational community agrees with this goal, and you can show how testing your hypotheses will move the field forward to achieving this goal, you will have developed a convincing argument for the importance of your work.

In Chap. 2 , we argued the importance of your hypotheses can and should be established before you collect data. Your theoretical framework should carry the weight of your argument because it should describe how your hypotheses will extend what is already known. Your methods should then show that you will test your hypotheses in an appropriate way—in a way that will allow you to detect how the results did, and did not, confirm the hypotheses. This will, in turn, allow you to formulate revised hypotheses. We described establishing the importance of your study by saying, “The importance can come from the fact that, based on the results, you will be able to offer revised hypotheses that help the field better understand an issue relevant for improving all students’ learning opportunities.”

The ideas from Chaps. 1 , 2 , and 3 go a long way toward setting the parameters for what counts as an important study and how its importance can be determined. Chapter 4 focused on ensuring that the importance of a study can be realized. The next section fills in the details by proposing definitions for the most common terms used to claim importance: significance, contributions, and implications.

You might notice that we do not have a chapter dedicated to discussing the presentation of the findings—that is, a “results” chapter. We do not mean to imply that presenting results is trivial. However, we believe that if you follow our recommendations for writing your evolving research paper, presenting the results will be quite straightforward. The key is to present your results so they can be most easily compared with your predictions. This means, among other things, organizing your presentation of results according to your earlier presentation of hypotheses.

Part II. Clarifying Importance by Revisiting the Definitions of Key Terms

What does it mean to say your findings are significant? Statistical significance is clear. There are widely accepted standards for determining the statistical significance of findings. But what about educational significance? Is this the same as claiming that your study makes an important contribution? Or, that your study has important implications? Different researchers might answer these questions in different ways. When key terms like these are overused, their definitions gradually broaden or shift, and they can lose their meaning. That is unfortunate, because it creates confusion about how to develop claims for the importance of a study.

By clarifying the definitions, we hope to clarify what is required to claim that a study is significant , that it makes a contribution , and that it has important implications . Not everyone defines the terms as we do. Our definitions are probably a bit narrower or more targeted than those you may encounter elsewhere. Depending on where you want to publish your study, you may want to adapt your use of these terms to match more closely the expectations of a particular journal. But the way we define and address these terms is not antithetical to common uses. And we believe ridding the terms of unnecessary overlap allows us to discriminate among different key concepts with respect to claims for the importance of research studies. It is not necessary to define the terms exactly as we have, but it is critical that the ideas embedded in our definitions be distinguished and that all of them be taken into account when examining the importance of a study.

We will use the following definitions:

Significance: The importance of the problem, questions, and/or hypotheses for improving the learning opportunities for all students (you can substitute a different long-term goal if its value is widely shared). Significance can be determined before data are gathered. Significance is an attribute of the research problem , not the research findings .

Contributions : The value of the findings for revising the hypotheses, making clear what has been learned, what is now better understood.

Implications : Deductions about what can be concluded from the findings that are not already included in “contributions.” The most common deductions in educational research are for improving educational practice. Deductions for research practice that are not already defined as contributions are often suggestions about research methods that are especially useful or methods to avoid.

Significance

The significance of a study is built by formulating research questions and hypotheses you connect through a careful argument to a long-term goal of widely shared value (e.g., improving learning opportunities for all students). Significance applies both to the domain in which your study is located and to your individual study. The significance of the domain is established by choosing a goal of widely shared value and then identifying a domain you can show is connected to achieving the goal. For example, if the goal to which your study contributes is improving the learning opportunities for all students, your study might aim to understand more fully how things work in a domain such as teaching for conceptual understanding, or preparing teachers to attend to all students, or designing curricula to support all learners, or connecting learning opportunities to particular learning outcomes.

The significance of your individual study is something you build ; it is not predetermined or self-evident. Significance of a study is established by making a case for it, not by simply choosing hypotheses everyone already thinks are important. Although you might believe the significance of your study is obvious, readers will need to be convinced.

Significance is something you develop in your evolving research paper. The theoretical framework you present connects your study to what has been investigated previously. Your argument for significance of the domain comes from the significance of the line of research of which your study is a part. The significance of your study is developed by showing, through the presentation of your framework, how your study advances this line of research. This means the lion’s share of your answer to the “So what?” question will be developed as part of your theoretical framework.

Although defining significance as located in your paper prior to presenting results is not a definition universally shared among educational researchers, it is becoming an increasingly common view. In fact, there is movement toward evaluating the significance of a study based only on the first sections of a research paper—the sections prior to the results (Makel et al., 2021 ).

In addition to addressing the “So what?” question, your theoretical framework can address another common concern often voiced by readers: “What is so interesting? I could have predicted those results.” Predictions do not need to be surprising to be interesting and significant. The significance comes from the rationales that show how the predictions extend what is currently known. It is irrelevant how many researchers could have made the predictions. What makes a study significant is that the theoretical framework and the predictions make clear how the study will increase the field’s understanding toward achieving a goal of shared value.

An important consequence of interpreting significance as a carefully developed argument for the importance of your research study within a larger domain is that it reveals the advantage of conducting a series of connected studies rather than single, disconnected studies. Building the significance of a research study requires time and effort. Once you have established significance for a particular study, you can build on this same argument for related studies. This saves time, allows you to continue to refine your argument across studies, and increases the likelihood your studies will contribute to the field.

Contributions

As we have noted, in fields as complicated as education, it is unlikely that your predictions will be entirely accurate. If the problem you are investigating is significant, the hypotheses will be formulated in such a way that they extend a line of research to understand more deeply phenomena related to students’ learning opportunities or another goal of shared value. Often, this means investigating the conditions under which phenomena occur. This gets complicated very quickly, so the data you gather will likely differ from your predictions in a variety of ways. The contributions your study makes will depend on how you interpret these results in light of the original hypotheses.

Contributions Emerge from Revisions to your Hypotheses

We view interpreting results as a process of comparing the data with the predictions and then examining the way in which hypotheses should be revised to more fully account for the results. Revising will almost always be warranted because, as we noted, predictions are unlikely to be entirely accurate. For example, if researchers expect Outcome A to occur under specified conditions but find that it does not occur to the extent predicted or actually does occur but without all the conditions, they must ask what changes to the hypotheses are needed to predict more accurately the conditions under which Outcome A occurred. Are there, for example, essential conditions that were not anticipated and that should be included in the revised hypotheses?

Consider an example from a recently published study (Wang et al., 2021 ). A team of researchers investigated the following research question: “How are students’ perceptions of their parents’ expectations related to students’ mathematics-related beliefs and their perceived mathematics achievement?” The researchers predicted that students’ perceptions of their parents’ expectations would be highly related to students’ mathematics-related beliefs and their perceived mathematics achievement. The rationale was based largely on prior research that had consistently found parents’ general educational expectations to be highly correlated with students’ achievement.

The findings showed that Chinese high school students’ perceptions of their parents’ educational expectations were positively related to these students’ mathematics-related beliefs. In other words, students who believed their parents expected them to attain higher levels of education had more desirable mathematics-related beliefs.

However, students’ perceptions of their parents’ expectations about mathematics achievement were not related to students’ mathematics-related beliefs in the same way as the more general parental educational expectations. Students who reported that their parents had no specific expectations possessed more desirable mathematics-related beliefs than all other subgroups. In addition, these students tended to perceive their mathematics achievement rank in their class to be higher on average than students who reported that their parents expressed some level of expectation for mathematics achievement.

Because this finding was not predicted, the researchers revised the original hypothesis. Their new prediction was that students who believe their parents have no specific mathematics achievement expectations possess more positive mathematics-related beliefs and higher perceived mathematics achievement than students who believe their parents do have specific expectations. They developed a revised rationale that drew on research on parental pressure and mathematics anxiety, positing that parents’ specific mathematics achievement expectations might increase their children’s sense of pressure and anxiety, thus fostering less positive mathematics-related beliefs. The team then conducted a follow-up study. Their findings aligned more closely with the new predictions and affirmed the better explanatory power of the revised rationale. The contributions of the study are found in this increased explanatory power—in the new understandings of this phenomenon contained in the revisions to the rationale.

Interpreting findings in order to revise hypotheses is not a straightforward task. Usually, the rationales blend multiple constructs or variables and predict multiple outcomes, with different outcomes connected to different research questions and addressed by different sets of data. Nevertheless, the contributions of your study depend on specifying the differences between your original hypotheses and your revised hypotheses. What can you explain now that you could not explain before?

We believe that revising hypotheses is an optimal response to any question of contributions because a researcher’s initial hypotheses plus the revisions suggested by the data are the most productive way to tie a study into the larger chain of research of which it is a part. Revised hypotheses represent growth in knowledge. Building on other researchers’ revised hypotheses and revising them further by more explicitly and precisely describing the conditions that are expected to influence the outcomes in the next study accumulates knowledge in a form that can be recorded, shared, built upon, and improved.

The significance of your study is presented in the opening sections of your evolving research paper whereas the contributions are presented in the final section, after the results. In fact, the central focus in this “Discussion” section should be a specification of the contributions (note, though, that this guidance may not fully align with the requirements of some journals).

Contributions Answer the Question of Generalizability

A common and often contentious, confusing issue that can befuddle novice and experienced researchers alike is the generalizability of results. All researchers prefer to believe the results they report apply to more than the sample of participants in their study. How important would a study be if the results applied only to, say, two fourth-grade classrooms in one school, or to the exact same tasks used as measures? How do you decide to which larger population (of students or tasks) your results could generalize? How can you state your claims so they are precisely those justified by the data?

To illustrate the challenge faced by researchers in answering these questions, we return to the JRME reviewers. We found that 30% of the reviews expressed concerns about the match between the results and the claims. For manuscripts that ultimately received a decision of Reject, the majority of reviewers said the authors had overreached—the claims were not supported by the data. In other words, authors generalized their claims beyond those that could be justified.

The Connection Between Contributions and Generalizability

In our view, claims about contributions can be examined productively alongside considerations of generalizability. To make the case for this view, we need to back up a bit. Recall that the purpose of research is to understand a phenomenon. To understand a phenomenon, you need to determine the conditions under which it occurs. Consequently, productive hypotheses specify the conditions under which the predictions hold and explain why and how these conditions make a difference. And the conditions set the parameters on generalizability. They identify when, where, and for whom the effect or situation will occur. So, hypotheses describe the extent of expected generalizability, and revised hypotheses that contain the contributions recalibrate generalizability and offer new predictions within these parameters.

An Example That Illustrates the Connection

In Chap. 4 , we introduced an example with a research question asking whether second graders improve their understanding of place value after a specially designed instructional intervention. We suggested asking a few second and third graders to complete your tasks to see if they generated the expected variation in performance. Suppose you completed this pilot study and now have satisfactory tasks. What conditions might influence the effect of the intervention? After careful study, you developed rationales that supported three conditions: the entry level of students’ understanding, the way in which the intervention is implemented, and the classroom norms that set expectations for students’ participation.

Suppose your original hypotheses predicted the desired effect of the intervention only if the students possessed an understanding of several concepts on which place value is built, only if the intervention was implemented with fidelity to the detailed instructional guidelines, and only if classroom norms encouraged students to participate in small-group work and whole-class discussions. Your claims of generalizability will apply to second-grade settings with these characteristics.

Now suppose you designed the study so the intervention occurred in five second-grade classrooms that agreed to participate. The pre-intervention assessment showed all students with the minimal level of entry understanding. The same well-trained teacher was employed to teach the intervention in all five classrooms, none of which included her own students. And you learned from prior observations and reports of the classroom teachers that three of the classrooms operated with the desired classroom norms, but two did not. Because of these conditions, your study is now designed to test one of your hypotheses—the desired effect will occur only if classroom norms encouraged students to participate in small-group work and whole-class discussions. This is the only condition that will vary; the other two (prior level of understanding and fidelity of implementation) are the same across classrooms so you will not learn how these affect the results.

Suppose the classrooms performed equally well on the post-intervention assessments. You expected lower performance in the two classrooms with less student participation, so you need to revise your hypotheses. The challenge is to explain the higher-than-expected performance of these students. Because you were interested in understanding the effects of this condition, you observed several lessons in all the classrooms during the intervention. You can now use this information to explain why the intervention worked equally well in classrooms with different norms.

Your revised hypothesis captures this part of your study’s contribution. You can now say more about the ways in which the intervention can help students improve their understanding of place value because you have different information about the role of classroom norms. This, in turn, allows you to specify more precisely the nature and extent of the generalizability of your findings. You now can generalize your findings to classrooms with different norms. However, because you did not learn more about the impact of students’ entry level understandings or of different kinds of implementation, the generalizability along these dimensions remains as limited as before.

This example is simplified. In many studies, the findings will be more complicated, and more conditions will likely be identified, some of which were anticipated and some of which emerged while conducting the study and analyzing the data. Nevertheless, the point is that generalizability should be tied to the conditions that are expected to affect the results. Further, unanticipated conditions almost always appear, so generalizations should be conservative and made with caution and humility. They are likely to change after testing the new predictions.

Contributions Are Assured When Hypotheses Are Significant and Methods Are Appropriate and Aligned

We have argued that the contributions of your study are produced by the revised hypotheses you can formulate based on your results. Will these revisions always represent contributions to the field? What if the revisions are minor? What if your results do not inform revisions to your hypotheses?

We will answer these questions briefly now and then develop them further in Part IV of this chapter. The answer to the primary question is “yes,” your revisions will always be a contribution to the field if (1) your hypotheses are significant and (2) you crafted appropriate methods to test the hypotheses. This is true even if your revisions are minor or if your data are not as informative as you expected. However, this is true only if you meet the two conditions in the earlier sentence. The first condition (significant hypotheses) can be satisfied by following the suggestions in the earlier section on significance. The second condition (appropriate methods) is addressed further in Part III in this chapter.

Implications

Before examining the role of methods in connecting significance with important contributions, we elaborate briefly our definition of “implications.” We reserve implications for the conclusions you can logically deduce from your findings that are not already presented as contributions. This means that, like contributions, implications are presented in the Discussion section of your research paper.

Many educational researchers present two types of implications: implications for future research and implications for practice. Although we are aware of this common usage, we believe our definition of “contributions” cover these implications. Clarifying why we call these “contributions” will explain why we largely reserve the word “implications” for recommendations regarding methods.

Implications for Future Research

Implications for future research often include (1) recommendations for empirical studies that would extend the findings of this study, (2) inferences about the usefulness of theoretical constructs, and (3) conclusions about the advisability of using particular kinds of methods. Given our earlier definitions, we prefer to label the first two types of implications as contributions.

Consider recommendations for empirical studies. After analyzing the data and presenting the results, we have suggested you compare the results with those predicted, revise the rationales for the original predictions to account for the results, and make new predictions based on the revised rationales. It is precisely these new predictions that can form the basis for recommending future research. Testing these new predictions is what would most productively extend this line of research. It can sometimes sound as if researchers are recommending future studies based on hunches about what research might yield useful findings. But researchers can do better than this. It would be more productive to base recommendations on a careful analysis of how the predictions of the original study could be sharpened and improved.

Now consider inferences about the usefulness of theoretical constructs. Our argument for labeling these inferences as contributions is similar. Rationales for predictions are where the relevant theoretical constructs are located. Revisions to these rationales based on the differences between the results and the predictions reveal the theoretical constructs that were affirmed to support accurate predictions and those that must be revised. In our view, usefulness is determined through this revision process.

Implications that do not come under our meaning of contributions are in the third type of implications, namely the appropriateness of methods for generating rich contributions. These kinds of implications are produced by your evaluation of your methods: research design, sampling procedures, tasks, data collection procedures, and data analyses. Although not always included in the discussion of findings, we believe it would be helpful for researchers to identify particular methods that were useful for conducting their study and those that should be modified or avoided. We believe these are appropriately called implications.

Implications for Practice

If the purpose of research is to better understand how to improve learning opportunities for all students, then it is appropriate to consider whether implications for improving educational practice can be drawn from the results of a study. How are these implications formulated? This is an important question because, in our view, these claims often come across as an afterthought, “Oh, I need to add some implications for practice.” But here is the sobering reality facing researchers: By any measure, the history of educational research shows that identifying these implications has had little positive effect on practice.

Perhaps the most challenging task for researchers who attempt to draw implications for practice is to interpret their findings for appropriate settings. A researcher who studied the instructional intervention for second graders on place value and found that average performance in the intervention classrooms improved more than in the textbook classrooms might be tempted to draw implications for practice. What should the researcher say? That second-grade teachers should adopt the intervention? Such an implication would be an overreach because, as we noted earlier, the findings cannot be generalized to all second-grade classrooms. Moreover, an improvement in average performance does not mean the intervention was better for all students.

The challenge is to identify the conditions under which the intervention would improve the learning opportunities for all students. Some of these conditions will be identified as the theoretical framework is built because the predictions need to account for these conditions. But some will be unforeseen, and some that are identified will not be informed by the findings. Recall that, in the study described earlier, a condition of entry level of understanding was hypothesized but the design of the study did not allow the researcher to draw any conclusions about its effect.

What can researchers say about implications for practice given the complexities involved in generalizing findings to other settings? We offer two recommendations. First, because it is difficult to specify all the conditions under which a phenomenon occurs, it is rarely appropriate to prescribe an educational practice. Researchers cannot anticipate the conditions under which individual teachers operate, conditions that often require adaptation of a suggested practice rather than implementation of a practice as prescribed.

Our second recommendation comes from returning to the purpose for educational research—to understand more fully how to improve learning opportunities for all students (or to achieve another goal of widely shared value). As we have described, understanding comes primarily from building and reevaluating rationales for your predictions. If you reach a new understanding related to improving learning opportunities, an understanding that could have practical implications, we recommend you share this understanding as an implication for practice.

For example, suppose the researcher who found better average performance of second graders after the intervention on place value had also studied several conditions under which performance improved. And suppose the researcher found that most students who did not improve their performance misunderstood a concept that appeared early in the intervention (e.g., the multiplicative relationship between positional values of a numeral). An implication for practice the researcher might share would be to describe the potential importance of understanding this concept early in the sequence of activities if teachers try out this intervention.

If you use our definitions, these implications for practice would be presented as contributions because they emerge directly from reevaluating and revising your rationales. We believe it is appropriate to use “Contributions” as the heading for this section in the Discussion section of your research paper. However, if editors prefer “Implications” we recommend following their suggestion.

We want to be clear that the terms you use for the different ways your study is important is not critical. We chose to define the terms significance, contributions, and implications in very specific and not universally shared ways to distinguish all the meanings of importance you should consider. Some of these can be established through your theoretical framework, some by the revisions of your hypotheses, and some by reflecting on the value of particular methods. The important thing, from our point of view, is that the ideas we defined for each of these terms are distinguished and recognized as specific ways of determining the importance of your study.

Part III. The Role of Methods in Determining Contributions

We have argued that every part of the study (and of the evolving research paper) should be aligned. All parts should be connected through a coherent chain of reasoning. In this chapter, we argue that the chain of reasoning is not complete until the methods are presented and the results are interpreted and discussed. The methods of the study create a bridge that connects the introductory material (research questions, theoretical framework, literature review, hypotheses) with the results and interpretations.

The role that methods play in scientific inquiry is to ensure that your hypotheses will be tested appropriately so the significance of your study will yield its potential contributions. To do this, the methods must do more than follow the standard guidelines and be technically correct (see Chap. 4 ). They must also fit with the surrounding parts of the study. We call this coherence.

Coherence Across the Phases of Scientific Inquiry

Coherence means the parts of a whole are fully aligned. When doing scientific inquiry, the early parts or phases should motivate the later phases. The methods you use should be motivated or explained by the earlier phases (e.g., research questions, theoretical framework, hypotheses). Your methods, in turn, should produce results that can be interpreted by comparing them with your predictions. Methods are aligned with earlier phases when you can use the rationales contained in your hypotheses to decide what kinds of data are needed to test your predictions, how best to gather these kinds of data, and what analyses should be performed (see Chap. 4 and Cai et al., 2019a ).

For a visual representation of this coherence, see Fig. 5.1 . Each box identifies an aspect of scientific inquiry. Hypotheses (shown in Box 1) include the rationales and predictions. Because the rationales encompass the theoretical framework and the literature review, Box 1 establishes the significance of the study. Box 2 represents the methods, which we defined in Chap. 4 as the entire set of procedures you will use, including the basic design, measures for collecting data, and analytic approaches. In Fig. 5.1 , the hypothesis in Box 1 points you to the methods you will use. That is, you will choose methods that provide data for analyses that will generate results or findings (Box 3) that allow you to make comparisons against your predictions. Based on those comparisons, you will revise your hypotheses and derive the contributions and implications of your study (Box 4).

The Chain of Coherence That Runs Through All Parts of a Research Study

We intend Fig. 5.1 to carry several messages. One is that coherence of a study and the associated research paper require all aspects of the study to flow from one into the other. Each set of prior entries must motivate and justify the next one. For example, the data and analyses you intend to gather and use in Box 2 (Methods) must be those that are motivated and explained by the research question and hypothesis (prediction and rationale) in Box 1.

A second message in the figure is that coherence includes Box 4, “Discussion.” Aligned with the first three boxes, the fourth box flows from these boxes but is also constrained by them. The contributions and implications authors describe in the Discussion section of the paper cannot go beyond what is allowed by the original hypotheses and the revisions to these hypotheses indicated by the findings.

Methods Enable Significance to Yield Contributions

We begin this section by identifying a third message conveyed in Fig. 5.1 . The methods of the study, represented by Box 2, provide a bridge that connects the significance of the study (Box 1) with the contributions of the study (Box 4). The results (Box 3) indicate the nature of the contributions by determining the revisions to the original hypotheses.

In our view, the connecting role played by the methods is often underappreciated. Crafting appropriate methods aligned with the significance of the study, on one hand, and the interpretations, on the other, can determine whether a study is judged to make a contribution.

If the hypotheses are established as significant, and if appropriate methods are used to test the predictions, the study will make important contributions even if the data are not statistically significant. We can say this another way. When researchers establish the significance of the hypotheses (i.e., convince readers they are of interest to the field) and use methods that provide a sound test of these hypotheses, the data they present will be of interest regardless of how they turn out. This is why Makel et al. ( 2021 ) endorse a review process for publication that emphasizes the significance of the study as presented in the first sections of a research paper.

Treating the methods as connecting the introductory arguments to the interpretations of data prevent researchers from making a common mistake: When writing the research paper, some researchers lose track of the research questions and/or the predictions. In other words, results are presented but are not interpreted as answers to the research questions or compared with the predictions. It is as if the introductory material of the paper begins one story, and the interpretations of results ends a different story. Lack of alignment makes it impossible to tell one coherent story.

A final point is that the alignment of a study cannot be evaluated and appreciated if the methods are not fully described. Methods must be described clearly and completely in the research paper so readers can see how they flow from the earlier phases of the study and how they yield the data presented. We suggested in Chap. 4 a rule of thumb for deciding whether the methods have been fully described: “Readers should be able to replicate the study if they wish.”

Part IV. Special Considerations that Affect a Study’s Contributions

We conclude Chap. 5 by addressing two additional issues that can affect how researchers interpret the results and make claims about the contributions of a study. Usually, researchers deal with these issues in the Discussion section of their research paper, but we believe it is useful to consider them as you plan and conduct your study. The issues can be posed as questions: How should I treat the limitations of my study? How should I deal with findings that are completely unexpected?

Limitations of a Study

We can identify two kinds of limitations: (1) limitations that constrain your ability to interpret your results because of unfortunate choices you made, and (2) limitations that constrain your ability to generalize your results because of missing variables you could not fit into the scope of your study or did not anticipate. We recommend different ways of dealing with these.

Limitations Due to Unfortunate Choices

All researchers make unfortunate choices. These are mistakes that could have been prevented. Often, they are choices in how a study was designed and/or executed. Maybe the sample did not have the characteristics assumed, or a task did not assess what was expected, or the intervention was not implemented as planned. Although many unfortunate choices can be prevented by thinking through the consequences of every decision or by conducting a well-designed pilot study or two, some will occur anyway. How should you deal with them?

The consequence of unfortunate choices is that the data do not test the hypotheses as precisely or completely as hoped. When this happens, the data must be interpreted with these constraints in mind. Almost always, this limits the researcher to making fewer or narrower claims than desired about differences and similarities between the results and the predictions. Usually this means conclusions about the ways in which the rationales must be revised require extra qualifications. In other words, claims about contributions of the study must be made with extra caution.

Research papers frequently include a subsection in the Discussion called “Limitations of the Study.” Researchers often use this subsection to identify the study’s limitations by describing the unfortunate choices, but they do not always spell out how these limitations should affect the contributions of the paper. Sometimes, it appears that researchers are simply checking off a requirement to identify the limitations by saying something like “The results should be interpreted with caution.” But this does not help readers understand exactly what cautions should be applied and it does not hold researchers accountable for the limitations.

We recommend something different. We suggest you do the hard work of figuring out how the data should be interpreted in light of the limitations and share these details with the readers. You might do this when the results are presented or when you interpret them. Rather than presenting your claims about the contributions of the study and then saying readers should interpret these with “caution” because of the study’s limitations, we suggest presenting only those interpretations and claims of contributions that can be made with the limitations in mind.

One way to think about the constraints you will likely need to impose on your interpretations is in terms of generalizability. Recall that earlier in this chapter, we described the close relationship between contributions and generalizability. When generalizability is restricted, so are contributions.

Limitations Due to Missing Variables

Because of the complexity of problems, questions, and hypotheses explored in educational research, researchers are unlikely to anticipate in their studies all the variables that affect the data and results. In addition, tradeoffs often must be made. Researchers cannot study everything at once, so decisions must be made about which variables to study carefully and which to either control or ignore.

In the earlier example of studying whether second graders improve their understanding of place value after a specially designed instructional intervention, the researcher identified three variables that were expected to influence the effect of the intervention: students’ entry level of understanding, implementation of the intervention, and norms of the classrooms in which the intervention was implemented. The researcher decided to control the implementation variable by hiring one experienced teacher to implement the intervention in all the classrooms. This meant the variable of individual teacher differences was not included in the study and the researcher could not generalize to classrooms with these differences.

Some researchers might see controlling the implementation of the intervention as a limitation. We do not. As a factor that is not allowed to vary, it constrains the generalizations a researcher can make, but we believe these kinds of controlled variables are better treated as opportunities for future research. Perhaps the researcher’s observations in the classroom provided information that could be used to make some predictions about which elements of the intervention are essential and which are optional—about which aspects of the intervention must be implemented as written and which can vary with different teachers. When revising the rationales to show what was learned in this study, the researcher could include rationales for new, tentative predictions about the effects of the intervention in classrooms where implementation differed in specified ways. These predictions create a genuine contribution of the study. If you use our definitions, these new predictions, often presented under “implications for future research,” would be presented as “contributions.”

Notice that if you follow our advice, you would not need to include a separate section in the Discussion of your paper labeled “Limitations.” We acknowledge, however, that some journal editors recommend such a subsection. In this case, we suggest you include this subsection along with treating the two different kinds of limitations as we recommend. You can do both.

Dealing with Unexpected Findings

Researchers are often faced with unexpected and perhaps surprising results, even when they have developed a convincing theoretical framework, posed research questions tightly connected to this framework, presented predictions about expected outcomes, and selected methods that appropriately test these predictions. Indeed, the unexpected findings can be the most interesting and valuable products of the study. They can range from mildly surprising to “Wow. I didn’t expect that.” How should researchers treat such findings? Our answer is based on two principles.

The first principle is that the value of research does not lie in whether the predictions are completely accurate but in helping the field learn more about the explanatory power of theoretical frameworks. That is, the value lies in the increased understanding of phenomena generated by examining the ability of theoretical frameworks (or rationales) to predict outcomes and explain results. The second principle, a corollary to the first, is to treat unexpected findings in a way that is most educative for the reader.

Based on our arguments to this point, you could guess we will say there will always be unexpected findings. Predicted answers to significant research questions in education will rarely, if ever, be entirely accurate. So, you can count on dealing with unexpected findings.

Consistent with the two principles above, your goal should be to use unexpected findings to understand more fully the phenomenon under investigation. We recommend one of three different paths. The choice of which path to take depends on what you decide after reflecting again on the decisions you made at each phase of the study.

The first path is appropriate when researchers reexamine their theoretical framework in light of the unexpected findings and decide that it is still a compelling framework based on previous work. They reason that readers are likely to have been convinced by this framework and would likely have made similar predictions. In this case, we believe that it is educative for researchers to (a) summarize their initial framework, (b) present the findings and distinguish those that were aligned with the predictions from those that were not, and (c) explain why the theoretical framework was inadequate and propose changes to the framework that would have created more alignment with the unexpected findings.

Revisions to initial hypotheses are especially useful if they include explanations for why a researcher might have been wrong (and researchers who ask significant questions in domains as complex as education are almost always wrong in some way). Depending on the ways in which the revised framework differs from the original, the authors have two options. If the revised framework is an expansion of the original, it would be appropriate for the authors to propose directions for future research that would extend this study. Alternatively, if the revised framework is still largely within the scope of the original study and consists of revisions to the original hypotheses, the revisions could guide a second study to check the adequacy of the revisions. This second study could be conducted by the same researchers (perhaps before the final manuscript is written and presented as two parts of the same report) or it could be proposed in the Discussion as a specific study that could be conducted by other researchers.

The second path is appropriate when researchers reexamine their theoretical framework in light of the unexpected findings and recognize serious flaws in the framework. The flaws could result from a number of factors, including defining elements of the framework in too general a way to formulate well-grounded hypotheses, failing to include a variable, or not accounting carefully enough for the previous work in this domain, both theoretical and empirical. In many of these cases, readers would not be well served by reading a poorly developed framework and then learning that the framework, which had not been convincing, did not accurately predict the results. Before scrapping the study and starting over, we suggest stepping back and reexamining the framework. Is it possible to develop a more coherent, complete, and convincing framework? Would this framework predict the results more accurately? If the findings remain unexpected based on the predictions generated by this revised, more compelling framework, then the first path applies.

It is likely that the new framework will better predict the findings. After all, the researchers now know the findings they will report. However, it is unlikely that the framework will accurately predict all the findings. This is because the framework is not built around the findings of this study of which authors are now aware (but have not yet been presented). Frameworks are built on research and theory already published. This means the redesigned framework is built from exactly the same empirical findings and theoretical arguments available before the study was conducted. The redesigned framework also is constrained by needing to justify exactly those methods used in the study. The redesigned framework cannot justify different methods or even slightly altered methods. The task for researchers is to show how the new theoretical framework necessarily generates, using the same methods, the predictions they present in the research paper. Just as before, it is unlikely this framework can account for all the findings. Just as before, after presenting the results the researchers should explain why they believe particular hypotheses were confirmed and why others should be revised, even in small ways, based on the findings reported. Researchers can now use these findings to revise the hypotheses presented in the paper. The point we are making is that we believe it is acceptable to reconstruct frameworks before writing research reports if doing so would be more educative for the reader.

Finally, the third path becomes appropriate when researchers, in reexamining their theoretical framework, trace the problem to a misalignment between the methods they used and the theoretical framework or the research questions. Perhaps the researchers recognize that the tasks they used did not yield data that could test the predictions and address the research questions. Or perhaps the researchers realize that the sample they selected would likely have been heavily influenced by a factor they failed to take into account. In other words, the researchers decide that the unexpected findings were due to a problem with the methods they used, not with the framework or the accompanying predictions. In this case, we recommend that the researchers correct the methodological problems and conduct the study again.

Part V. A Few Suggestions for Structuring Your Discussion Section

Writing the Discussion section of your research paper can be overwhelming given all our suggestions about what to include in this section. Here are a few tips that might help you create a simple template for this section.

We recommend the Discussion begin with a brief summary of the main results, especially those you will interpret in this section. This summary should not contain new data or results not previously presented in the paper.

The Discussion could then move to presenting the contributions in the ways we have described. To do this you could point out the ways in which the results differed from the predictions and suggest revisions to your rationales that would have better predicted the results. Doing this will show how the contributions of your study extend what is known beyond the research you drew on to build your original rationale. You can then propose how to extend your contributions to research by proposing future research studies that would test your new predictions. If you believe the revisions you make to your rationales produce new insights or understandings that could be helpful for educational practitioners, you can identify these contributions to practice as well. This comprises the bulk of the Discussion section.

If you have embedded the limitations in earlier sections of the paper, you will have presented your results and interpreted your findings constrained by these limitations. If you choose (or are asked) to describe limitations in the Discussion, you could identify the limitations and then point to the ways they affected your interpretations of the findings. Finally, the Discussion could conclude with the implications of the study for methodological choices that could improve research in the domain in which your study is located or how future studies could overcome the limitations you identified.

Because we are providing guidance on writing your research paper for publication, we will reiterate here that you should investigate the expectations and conventions of the journal to which you will submit your paper. Usually, it will be acceptable to use the terms “significance,” “contributions,” and “implications” as we have defined them. However, if the editors expect you to use the terms differently, follow the editors’ expectations. Our definitions in this chapter are meant to help you think clearly about the different ways you can make a case for the importance of your research. What matters is that you have carefully built and described a coherent chain of scientific inquiry that allows your study to translate the significance of your research problem into contributions to the field.

We began the chapter with the “So what?” question. The question looks simple and straightforward but is challenging and complicated. Its simple appearance can lead researchers to believe it should have a simple answer. But it almost never does. In this chapter, we tried to address the many complications that arise when answering the question. We hope you now have some new insights and new tools for answering the question in your next study.

Cai, J., Morris, A., Hohensee, C., Hwang, S., Robison, V., Cirillo, M., Kramer, S. L., & Hiebert, J. (2019a). Choosing and justifying robust methods for educational research. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 50 (4), 342–348. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.50.2.0114

Article   Google Scholar  

Makel, M. C., Hodges, J., Cook, G. B., & Plucker, J. A. (2021). Both questionable and open research practices are prevalent in education research. Educational Researcher, 50 (8), 493–504.

Wang, G., Zhang, S., & Cai, J. (2021). How are parental expectations related to students’ beliefs and their perceived achievement? Educational Studies in Mathematics., 108 , 429–450. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-021-10073-w

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Education, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA

James Hiebert, Anne K Morris & Charles Hohensee

Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA

Jinfa Cai & Stephen Hwang

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Hiebert, J., Cai, J., Hwang, S., Morris, A.K., Hohensee, C. (2023). Significance of a Study: Revisiting the “So What” Question. In: Doing Research: A New Researcher’s Guide. Research in Mathematics Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-19078-0_5

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-19078-0_5

Published : 03 December 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-19077-3

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-19078-0

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Systematic review update
• Open access
• Published: 29 June 2024

Effectiveness of e-cigarettes as a stop smoking intervention in adults: a systematic review

• Niyati Vyas 1 ,
• Alexandria Bennett   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5977-2094 1 ,
• Candyce Hamel 2 ,
• Andrew Beck 2 ,
• Micere Thuku 2 ,
• Mona Hersi 2 ,
• Nicole Shaver 1 ,
• Becky Skidmore 2 ,
• Brian Hutton 2 , 3 ,
• Douglas Manuel 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 ,
• Matt Morrow 7 ,
• Smita Pakhale 2 , 3 , 4 ,
• Justin Presseau 2 , 3 , 8 ,
• Beverley J. Shea 1 , 3 ,
• Julian Little 1 ,
• David Moher 1 , 3 &
• Adrienne Stevens 2  

Systematic Reviews volume  13 , Article number:  168 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

415 Accesses

Metrics details

This systematic review aims to identify the benefits and harms of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) as a smoking cessation aid in adults (aged ≥ 18 years) and to inform the development of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care’s (CTFPHC) clinical practice guidelines on e-cigarettes.

We searched Ovid MEDLINE®, Ovid MEDLINE® Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, PsycINFO, Embase Classic + Embase, and the Cochrane Library on Wiley. Searches were conducted from January 2016 to July 2019 and updated on 24 September 2020 and 25 January 2024. Two reviewers independently performed title-abstract and full-text screening according to the pre-determined inclusion criteria. Data extraction, quality assessments, and the application of Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) were performed by one independent reviewer and verified by another.

We identified 18 studies on 17 randomized controlled trials that compared e-cigarettes with nicotine to e-cigarettes without nicotine and e-cigarettes (with or without nicotine) to other interventions (i.e., no intervention, waitlist, standard/usual care, quit advice, or behavioral support). Considering the benefits of e-cigarettes in terms of smoking abstinence and smoking frequency reduction, 14 studies showed small or moderate benefits of e-cigarettes with or without nicotine compared to other interventions; although, with low, very low or moderate evidence certainty. With a focus on e-cigarettes with nicotine specifically, 12 studies showed benefits in terms of smoking abstinence when compared with usual care or non-nicotine e-cigarettes. In terms of harms following nicotine or non-nicotine e-cigarette use, 15 studies reported mild adverse events with little to no difference between groups and low to very low evidence certainty.

The evidence synthesis on the e-cigarette’s effectiveness shows data surrounding benefits having low to moderate evidence certainty for some comparisons and very low certainty for others, indicating that e-cigarettes may or probably increase smoking cessation, whereas, for harms, there is low to very low evidence certainty. Since the duration for outcome measurement varied among different studies, it may not be long-term enough for Adverse Events (AEs) to emerge, and there is a need for more research to understand the long-term benefits and potential harms of e-cigarettes.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO CRD42018099692

Peer Review reports

Prevalence and burden of tobacco smoking

Tobacco use affects millions of people each year and over 8 million people died from tobacco-related diseases in 2019 [ 1 ]. The World Health Organization (WHO) member states adopted the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control in 2003, which outlines different evidence-based actions that all member states should consider [ 1 , 2 ]. The WHO global report (2019) on trends in tobacco use from 165 countries showed that in 2020, the global prevalence of current smokers declined to 22.3% from 32.7% in 2000 among those aged 15 years and older, with an expected decline to around 20.4% by 2025 [ 1 ]. In Canada, there has been an overall reduction in the prevalence of current smokers over the past years. The Canadian Tobacco and Nicotine Survey (CTNS) showed that in 2022 the cigarette smoking prevalence among adults aged 25 years and older was 11.7% [95% CI 10.8% to 12.7%], unchanged from 2021, with a higher prevalence among adult men than women (13.8% versus 9.8%) [ 3 ].

Smoking continues to contribute as one of the leading causes of preventable deaths. Data from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), showed that tobacco use was ranked first of the top ten risk factors driving the most death and disability combined in Canada [ 4 ]. The 2019 global health metrics showed that tobacco remained the third leading risk factor for global attributable disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) despite the more than 1% per year decline in age-standardized tobacco use between 2010 and 2019 [ 5 ].

Smoking cessation has been shown to improve general, mental, and physical health [ 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 ]. A Canadian study found that men who had quit for 20 years had the same quality of life as those who had never smoked; this observation was even more beneficial for females, who only had to quit for 10 years [ 10 ]. Smoking cessation reduces over 90% of the mortality risk associated with continuous smoking if stopped before age 40 [ 11 , 12 ]. More than two-thirds (68.4%) of smokers who intended to quit attempted to use some form of cessation assistance, one-third (31.8%) used nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), and 26.5% reported using electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) as a cessation aid [ 3 , 13 ].

E-cigarettes are battery-powered devices that heat a solution to deliver an aerosolized vapor with or without nicotine [ 14 , 15 ]. They are popular amongst non-smokers, those who wish to quit cigarette smoking, youths, and young adults [ 16 ]. E-cigarettes may act as a smoking cessation aid by satisfying the sensory and behavioral cues of holding and smoking a cigarette without providing the combustible harms associated with cigarettes, such as formaldehyde, acrolein, or acetaldehyde [ 16 , 17 , 18 ]. There are varied types of e-cigarettes with varying brands and models available. This variation exists in terms of device type and the composition of e-liquids (i.e., nicotine content, flavors, and other components) [ 19 , 20 ]. As per the CTNS survey, those aged 15 to 24 years reported stress and curiosity as the reasons behind vaping, whereas for those aged 25 years old, the most common reasons were to help them quit smoking and cope with smoking relapse [ 3 ]. A 2022 Cochrane review on e-cigarettes for smoking cessation suggested that nicotine e-cigarettes could probably help more people quit smoking than using nicotine replacement therapy (risk ratio (RR) 1.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.30 to 2.04; I 2  = 10%; 6 studies, 2378 participants) with high level of evidence certainty. Additionally, there was a moderate level of evidence certainty that smoking quit rates were higher in nicotine e-cigarettes group than nicotine-free-e-cigarettes (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.21 to 3.13; I 2  = 0%; 5 studies, 1447 participants) and very low level of evidence certainty, although with higher quit rates in those randomized to nicotine e-cigarette compared to behavioral support only/no support group (RR = 2.66, 95% CI 1.52 to 4.65; I 2  = 0%; 7 studies, 3126 participants) [ 21 ]. Although there is no official approval of vaping products in Canada under the Food and Drugs Act (FDA) as a smoking cessation aid, e-cigarettes may reduce health risks for smokers who would otherwise not quit on their own or while using counseling or approved pharmacotherapies [ 22 ]. Evidence on the use of e-cigarettes and their health risks is inconclusive, which calls for a vigorous investigation of their effects on health outcomes [ 14 ].

Current guideline recommendations

Guidelines from international organizations.

E-cigarettes have been addressed by four international guideline organizations. The NICE guidelines recommend advising on use by health care professionals and giving clear information about nicotine-containing e-cigarettes to adults who smoke and are interested in using them to stop, including that they are not licensed medicines, and that there is not enough evidence to know whether there are long-term harms from e-cigarette use [ 23 ] . The New Zealand Ministry of Health guideline also recommends that vaping products with nicotine can be used for smoking cessation, but indicates that the long-term effects of e-cigarette use are unknown [ 24 ] . The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) judged that the evidence on e-cigarettes is insufficient and recommends directing patients to interventions with proven effectiveness and safety [ 25 ] . The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners advises that nicotine-containing e-cigarettes may be considered for people who were unsuccessful with first-line therapies and have brought up e-cigarettes with their provider and that patients should be informed of the risks and conditions of use (i.e., avoiding dual use, only short-term use) [ 26 , 27 ] .

Considering the growing interest in using e-cigarettes to quit conventional cigarette smoking, a systematic review was developed with a need to address guidance on whether e-cigarettes should be recommended as one of the smoking cessation strategies relevant to the Canadian context.

Our objective was to review the evidence regarding the benefits and harms of e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation intervention among adults and to inform the development of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care’s (CTFPHC) clinical practice guidelines on e-cigarettes. The following key question will be answered: What are the benefits and harms of electronic cigarettes with or without nicotine for tobacco use abstinence in adults compared to usual care?

We conducted an evidence review that occurred in two stages. The aim of stage 1 was to evaluate the benefits and harms of various smoking cessation interventions for adults and to identify a candidate review on e-cigarettes to update for stage 2, which is the subject of this paper. Eighteen systematic reviews, identified from stage 1, were first assessed for representativeness (e.g., population of interest, how recent the search was performed) [ 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 ]. Four reviews [ 29 , 30 , 36 , 43 ] were further evaluated with AMSTAR 2 and discussed [ 45 ]. Due to poor reporting, three reviews [ 30 , 36 , 43 ] were removed from consideration. Hartmann-Boyce 2016 [ 29 ] was selected as the candidate review because it provided a complete list of excluded studies, included clinical trials registry protocols, and provided support for the risk of bias (RoB) judgments. The results of stage 1 are reported elsewhere.

Our evidence review was developed, conducted, and prepared according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement (Additional file 1: Appendix 1) [ 46 ]. For additional quality control, we used AMSTAR 2 to guide the conduct of this review [ 45 ]. Details on how the topic was developed, eligibility criteria, and how outcomes were determined can be found in the protocol, which is published and registered with PROSPERO ( https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/ ) (CRD42018099692) [ 47 ].

Eligibility criteria

Randomized controlled trials were selected for inclusion to evaluate the benefits of e-cigarettes, as specified in Additional file 3: Appendix 3. To explore harms associated with e-cigarettes, randomized and non-randomized trials, comparative observational studies (i.e., prospective, and retrospective cohort, case–control) were selected for inclusion. Briefly, the systematic review focuses on adults (≥ 18 years) who are current smokers in whom various interventions are compared with inactive, minimally active [i.e., non-nicotine-containing e-cigarettes (e.g., placebo e-cigarettes)] or usual care control. To determine the eligibility of interventions for a given analysis, we included interventions like nicotine or non-nicotine-containing e-cigarettes alone or combined with other interventions (i.e., behavioral, or pharmacological). Alternatively, we excluded studies if they explicitly examined short-term use of nicotine or non-nicotine-containing e-cigarettes (< 1 week). For the smoking cessation outcomes, we included tobacco abstinence, smoking reduction data, and other outcomes as mentioned in Additional file 3: Appendix 3. For the smoking reduction, we included outcomes if reported a minimum of 6 months from the quit date or intervention initiation (if the quit date is not specified).

Literature sources and strategy

The search strategy was developed and tested through an iterative process by an experienced medical information specialist in consultation with the review team. We searched Ovid MEDLINE®, Ovid MEDLINE® Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, PsycINFO, Embase Classic + Embase, and the Cochrane Library on Wiley. As this was an update from the 2016 Hartmann-Boyce systematic review [ 29 ] whose search strategy was run in January 2016, databases were searched from January 2016 to July 3, 2019. The search strategy was peer-reviewed using the PRESS 2015 guideline [ 48 ]. The electronic search strategies were updated on 24 September 2020 and 25 January 2024. The final search strategy is provided in Additional file 2: Appendix 2.

The search for grey literature was the same as what was conducted for stage 1. We also scanned the bibliographies of relevant reviews for any studies not identified in our database search. Grey literature searching was restricted to English and French language documents and was limited to what could be completed within 1 week by one reviewer.

Study selection

Duplicates were identified and removed using a reference manager (Reference Manager 12, Thomson Reuters, New York, USA) [ 49 ]. Title, abstract, and full-text screening were conducted using an online systematic review managing software (DistillerSR, Evidence Partners, Ottawa, Canada) [ 50 ]. Two reviewers independently screened the title and abstracts of citations using the liberal accelerated method (i.e., a second reviewer verifies records excluded by a first reviewer) [ 51 ]. References were sorted in random order to ensure that each reviewer could not determine whether a given reference was excluded by another reviewer. The full text of potentially relevant citations was retrieved, and two reviewers independently assessed the article for relevancy against the a priori-defined eligibility criteria. Conflicts were resolved by consensus or by consulting with a third team member. The reasons for exclusion at full-text screening were documented. Where study eligibility was unclear, authors were contacted by email twice over 2 weeks for additional information. Both screening forms were piloted by reviewers prior to the commencement of screening, with adjustments made, as needed, to maximize efficiency. If necessary, articles were ordered via interlibrary loan. Only those received within 30 days were included. Exclusions due to the unavailability of articles were noted in the list of excluded studies (Additional file 4: Appendix 4).

Data extraction

One reviewer extracted data from all included studies, with a second reviewer verifying all extracted data. Conflicts were resolved through discussion. We collected both self-reported and biochemically validated tobacco abstinence and reduction results. Data for abstinence, reduction, and quality of life were collected at 6 months or later, whereas information on adverse events (AEs) and possible adverse outcomes were collected at all time points reported. Where needed, we converted data (e.g., standard error to standard deviation (SD), median (interquartile range [IQR]) to mean (SD)) to facilitate consistent presentation of results across studies. Authors were contacted by email twice over 2 weeks if any information was missing or was unclear.

Risk of bias

The RoB of randomized controlled trials was assessed by one reviewer using the Cochrane RoB tool version 1 [ 52 ]. For assessing the quality of cohort studies, a modified version of the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network critical appraisal tool was used [ 53 ]. We considered industry funding under the ‘other sources of bias’ domain of the tool. Verification was performed by a second reviewer. Any disagreements were resolved by consensus. Some domains are outcome-specific (e.g., blinding of participants) and were assessed at the outcome level. Overall RoB for the body of evidence was evaluated according to the importance of domains, the likely direction of bias, and the likely magnitude of bias [ 52 ]. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality guidance was followed for evaluating RoB for outcome and analysis reporting bias [ 54 ].

Study characteristics were summarized narratively and presented in summary tables. Where possible, relative and absolute effects with 95% confidence intervals were calculated and presented in a GRADE summary of findings and evidence profile tables. RR and risk differences (RD) were used to report effects for dichotomous data. For continuous outcomes, MD (i.e., difference in means) effect measure was used. Due to clinical and methodological heterogeneity (i.e., different types of e-cigarettes, their doses and combinations, duration of interventions, varied outcome reporting) meta-analysis, subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis, and small study effects were not performed. The Cochrane Review Manager software version 5.3 [ 55 ] was used to create forest plots.

Certainty assessment

For all critical and important outcomes as defined in Additional file 3: Appendix 3, we used the GRADE framework to assess the certainty of the evidence. The GRADE assessments were performed by one person and verified by a second, with any remaining disagreements resolved via consensus [ 56 , 57 ]. The RoB assessment, one reviewer performed the RoB assessment while another reviewed it, with any discrepancies resolved through a discussion. Eligibility criteria were used to guide our rating of indirectness. To assess imprecision and to establish the target of certainty ratings, extracted outcome data (i.e., including relative and absolute effects) were provided to the guideline Working Group to make their partially contextualized judgments on effect sizes (i.e., trivial, small, moderate, or large) for a given intervention or comparator and considering other contextual factors as necessary. Information on the procedure of effect size ratings and final effect size judgments can be found in Additional file 5: Appendix 5. The imprecision ratings for the outcomes extracted from the newly included studies based on the new search update were performed by study reviewers based on the effect size judgments mapping set by the Guideline Working Group.

Changes from protocol

Firstly, for feasibility and with the consultation from the Working Group, we further excluded comparative effectiveness data (i.e., as mentioned under the KQ2b of the protocol [ 47 ]) as well as data on populations with comorbidities after all screening, data extraction, and RoB assessment [ 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 ]. Also, we initially excluded studies on e-cigarettes compared with usual care and where usual/standard care might have included other active interventions such as NRT. However, upon discussion and clarification of PICOS with the guideline Working Group, we later included these studies if the usual care was provided in both study arms. This is distinct from studies that directly compared e-cigarettes to another intervention (i.e., not usual care, and without isolating the effect of e-cigarettes), which were excluded.

Search results

The electronic searches resulted in 6547 citations. As this was an update from the 2016 Hartmann-Boyce systematic review [ 29 ], the 51 included studies and ongoing trials registries were uploaded, of which 18 were already captured in the database search and therefore quarantined. Additionally, 152 records from grey literature searching were added to the search results. A total of 6412 unique records were evaluated based on title and abstract, with 1212 full-text studies being reviewed. Among the 1212 full texts, we included 18 studies on 17 trials [ 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 ]. Protocols and abstracts registered or published prior to 2016 were considered, as any full-text publications may be published in 2016 or later. Additionally, the bibliographies from 12 systematic reviews published in 2016 or later (Additional file 2: Appendix 2) were searched for any potentially relevant studies published from 2016 onward. No new citations were added from searching systematic reviews. A PRISMA flow diagram is provided in Fig.  1 and a list of excluded studies is provided in Additional file 4: Appendix 4.

PRISMA flow diagram

Characteristics of included studies

Additional file 6: Appendix 6 provides details of the study characteristics of the included studies. Briefly, 5 studies were performed in the USA (68 participants) [ 66 ], (40 participants) [ 70 ], (837 participants) [ 78 ], (638 participants) [ 79 ] and (520 participants) [ 82 ], 5 in Italy (ECLAT trial) (300 participants) [ 67 , 68 ], (1355 participants) [ 74 ], (73 participants) [ 75 ] and (210 participants) [ 81 ], 4 in the UK (408 participants) [ 65 ], (80 participants) [ 69 ], (135 participants) [ 77 ] and (80 participants) [ 80 ], 1 in Belgium (48 participants) [ 71 ], 2 in New Zealand (657 participants) [ 72 ] and (1124 participants) [ 76 ], and 1 in Canada (376 participants) [ 73 ]. Studies were published between 2013 and 2023. Twelve different e-cigarette models with varying nicotine concentrations were evaluated, including Joyetech eGo-C (18 mg/mL), Kanger T2-CC (18 mg/mL), eGo style 2nd generation (24 mg/mL), Categoria model 401 (7.2 mg/mL), BluCig 1st generation (16 mg/mL), BluPlus + (24 mg/mL), a prototype e-vapor product (2.0% nicotine; 2.7 mg/capsule), Vype 2nd generation (6, 12, 18 mg/mL), NJOY e-cig (15 mg/mL), E-cig (VP5 e-cigarette kit (8 mg/mL), 2nd generation eVOD (e-cig kit, 18 mg/mL) and Innokin T18E Smok and TECC mini with variable voltage. Comparator groups included no intervention, waitlist, placebo e-cigarette (0 mg/mL of nicotine), and usual/standard care. Among the six trials (Caponnetto 2013 [ 67 ] and Russo 2016 [ 68 ] reported on the same participants from one trial) the mean age (SD) ranged from 34.1 (10.6) years to 53 (10.1) years, 55.1% (520/944) of the participants were male, and all studies excluded pregnant women. Most studies took place in an academic research setting, with Holliday 2019 [ 69 ] taking place at a dental office among patients with periodontitis and Dawkins 2020 recruited participants from homeless centers [ 80 ].

The methods used for randomization were considered low risk in most studies; however, allocation concealment was poorly reported, leading to a judgment of unclear in nine of the 18 studies [ 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 70 , 71 , 75 , 81 , 82 ]. In studies in which blinding was possible (e.g., e-cigarette with nicotine vs e-cigarette with no nicotine), a judgment of low RoB was given. In other studies, where blinding was not possible (e.g., e-cigarette vs no intervention), if the outcome was objective (e.g., abstinence validated with exhaled carbon monoxide reading), a judgment of low RoB was given. For all other comparisons and outcomes, where a lack of blinding could impact the outcome (e.g., AEs), a judgment of high RoB was given. There was a mix of judgments for incomplete outcome data, as some authors used intention to treat (ITT) analysis (i.e., low risk), did not report the number of participants contributing to an outcome (i.e., unclear risk), or reported only on those who contributed to the outcome with a high loss to follow-up (i.e., high risk). Most studies referred to a clinical trials registry, which allowed for better judgments around selective outcome reporting. However, several studies were rated at high RoB as they either did not include an outcome in the registry which was then reported in the publication, or they listed an outcome in the registry which was then not reported in the publication [ 69 , 70 , 75 , 83 ]. One study reported a funder that was also the developer of the e-cigarette protocol used in the trial [ 65 ]. Another reason for a high RoB for the ‘other’ domain was an increased likelihood that participants in the control group were exposed to e-cigarettes with nicotine during the trial. Overall, outcomes from most studies were at high or unclear RoB. Smoking abstinence, reduction in tobacco use frequency, and AEs outcomes from three studies had a low risk of bias [ 72 , 76 , 77 ], while the other studies had those outcomes at a high RoB [ 66 , 69 , 73 , 75 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 ]. Furthermore, all the outcomes were judged to have an unclear RoB from five studies [ 66 , 67 , 70 , 71 , 73 ]. The results table and the RoB assessments can be found in Additional file 7: Appendix 7. The GRADE ratings can be found in Additional file 8: Appendix 8 and included analyses of intervention and comparator in Additional file 9: Appendix 9.

Certainty of the evidence

As there was only one study for most comparisons, inconsistency was rated as no serious concern. Publication bias was rated as no serious concern as there were no concerns around suppression or non-publication of results. Due to the small sample sizes, variation in e-cigarette devices and liquids used, and variation in how AEs were reported, all AEs in the GRADE tables are reported narratively. Detailed reasons for ratings are provided in each GRADE summary of findings table footnote section, reported for each comparison in Additional file 8: Appendix 8.

E-cigarettes with nicotine versus no intervention, usual care, waitlist, or other intervention

Two RCTs compared e-cigarettes with nicotine to no intervention [ 73 , 75 ], with behavioral support offered in both groups. Compared to no intervention, 86 more people per 1000 (95% CI 21 fewer to 338 more; n  = 1140 participants) on e-cigarettes with nicotine were smoking abstinent at the 6-month follow-up, although evidence was of very low certainty (rating down twice for risk of bias and imprecision) [ 75 ]. Those two studies also assessed the impact of e-cigarettes on smoking reduction measures (i.e., in terms of exhaled carbon monoxide [eCO] levels or the number of daily cigarettes smoked); however, there was a very low level of evidence certainty of evidence.

Holliday 2019 compared e-cigarettes with nicotine to usual care. Compared to usual care, 100 more people per 1000 (95% CI 18 fewer to 649 more; n  = 180 participants) receiving intervention reported smoking abstinence at 6 months follow-up; however, the level of evidence certainty was very low (rating down twice for risk of bias, imprecision and once for indirectness) [ 69 ]. Additionally, we have a very low level of evidence certainty for other outcome measures of smoking reduction (i.e., reduction in salivary cotinine, anabasine, and eCO levels) reported by the same study.

Walker 2020 compared e-cigarettes with nicotine in combination with behavioral therapy to another group that received only behavioral therapy, with nicotine patches offered under usual care in both groups [ 76 ]. Compared to the comparator group, 46 more people per 1000 (95% CI 2 fewer to 200 more; n  = 1, 625 participants) in the intervention group (i.e., e-cigarette with nicotine plus behavioral therapy plus usual care) reported being smoking abstinent at 6 months follow-up. Also, at 6 months follow-up, 127 more people per 1000 (95% CI 30 more to 288 more; n  = 1, 625 participants) receiving the intervention were point prevalence abstinent compared to those in the comparator group. The level of evidence certainty was rated as low. Additionally, 179 more people per 1000 (95% CI 61 more to 340 more; n  = 1, 625 participants) receiving e-cigarettes with nicotine in combination with behavioral therapy and standard care reported > 50% reduction in the number of cigarettes per day (CPD) than the comparator group; the level of evidence certainty was rated as low (Additional file 8: Appendix 8: Table S3, S7, and S9).

Myers Smith 2022 compared Nicotine e-cigarettes to another group that received interventions like Nicotine Replacement Treatment (NRT) choices [nicotine patches, chewing gum, nasal spray, microtab, inhalator, and mouth spray] [ 77 ]. Compared to the comparator group, 161 more people per 1000 (95% CI 15 more to 785 more; n  = 1, 135 participants) in the intervention group reported being smoking abstinent at 6 months follow-up. The level of evidence certainty was rated low. Also, at 6 months follow-up, 206 more people per 1000 (95% CI 36 more to 600 more; n  = 1, 135 participants) in the intervention group self-reported being smoking abstinent with verified eCO levels of < 8 ppm than the comparator group. The level of evidence certainty was rated low. Also, 299 more people per 1000 (95% CI 112 more to 560 more; n  = 1135 participants) receiving nicotine e-cigarettes reported a > 50% reduction in the number of daily cigarettes smoked than the comparator group. Additionally, 203 more people per 1000 (95% CI 36 more to 681 more; n  = 1, 135 participants) in the nicotine e-cigarettes group reported smoking frequency reduction in terms of reduced eCO levels of ≥ 50% compared to baseline. The level of evidence certainty was rated low (Additional file 8: Appendix 8: Table S12).

Xu 2023 compared nicotine e-cigarettes to another group receiving Quit advice [ 78 ]. At 6 months follow-up, 136 more people per 1000 (95% CI 55 more to 289.3 more; n  = 1, 837 participants) self-reported being smoking abstinent in the past 30 days compared to the comparator group. The level of evidence certainty was rated very low. At 12 months follow-up, 111 more people per 1000 (95% CI 42 more to 228 more; n  = 1837 participants) self-reported being smoking abstinent in the past 30 days compared to the comparator group. The level of evidence certainty was rated very low. Additionally, 40 fewer people per 1000 (95% CI 47 fewer to 34 fewer; n  = 1837 participants) in the intervention group self-reported reducing the number of daily cigarettes smoked than the comparator group at 6 months follow-up. The level of evidence certainty was rated very low. Also, 33 fewer people per 1000 (95% CI 53 fewer to 10 fewer; n  = 1, 837 participants) in the intervention group self-reported reducing the number of daily cigarettes smoked than the comparator group at 12 months follow-up. The level of evidence certainty was rated very low (Additional file 8: Appendix 8: Table S13).

Dawkins 2020 compared the nicotine e-cigarette group with another group receiving usual care [ 80 ]. At 6 months follow-up, 178 more people per 1000 (95% CI 103 fewer to 975 more; n  = 1, 80 participants) in the nicotine e-cigarettes group reduced the number of daily cigarettes smoked by at least 50% than the comparator group. The level of evidence certainty was rated very low. Also, at 6 months, 50 fewer people per 1000 (95% CI 190 fewer to 403 more; n  = 1, 80 participants) in the nicotine e-cigarette group self-reported a 50% reduction in expired CO levels than the comparator group. The level of evidence certainty was rated very low. In terms of self-reported health-related quality of life (QoL) measured using the EQ5D-3L (i.e., descriptive system converted to a utility value ranging from 0 [death] to 1 [perfect health]), the mean (SD) QoL score at 6 months in the intervention group was 0.653 (0.36) and in the usual care group was 0.691 (0.238). Similarly, the self-reported QoL measured using the HRQoL-Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) [perceived health on the day of administration, ranging from 0 (death) to 100 (perfect health)] at 24 weeks showed the mean (SD) QoL score as 61.8 (21.6) in the intervention compared to 61 (22.5) in the comparator group. The level of evidence certainty was rated very low (Additional file 8: Appendix 8: Table S15).

Two RCTs ( n  = 1808) assessed AEs in e-cigarettes with nicotine group to no intervention group at 12 to 16 weeks of follow-up [ 66 , 83 ] but the certainty of the evidence was very low (rated down twice for risk of bias and once or twice for imprecision) . One cohort study at 4 years of follow-up reported no serious AE (SAEs) and no higher risk with the nicotine e-cigarette group in comparison to traditional tobacco smoking [ 74 ]. When comparing e-cigarettes with nicotine to the waitlist or usual care, two RCTs provided evidence of very low certainty (rated down twice for risk of bias and once or twice for imprecision) (waitlist: no clear details on types of complaints and usual care: various dental events 20 vs 35 (e-cigarette vs usual care)) between groups in reporting AEs [ 69 , 71 ]. One RCT examining nicotine e-cigarettes with behavioral support to no intervention and behavioral support provided a very low level of evidence certainty (rated down twice for risk of bias and imprecision) on serious and mild AEs at 12 to 24 weeks of follow-up [ 73 ]. Lastly, one RCT found eight fewer people per 1000 (95% CI 15 fewer to 84 more; n  = 1, 625 participants) reporting a serious adverse event in nicotine e-cigarettes plus behavioral support plus nicotine patches group compared to behavioral support plus nicotine patches alone; the level of evidence certainty was rated low [ 76 ]. The same study found there is probably little to no difference in possible adverse events reporting at 6 months follow-up for both the intervention vs. control groups (i.e., vivid dreams 12 (4%) vs 6 (10%); itchiness 12 (4%) vs 2 (3%); redness, swelling at patch site 10 (3%) vs 5 (8%); dry mouth or throat 10 (3%) vs 0 (0%); cough 15 (4%) vs 0 (0%); nausea 6 (2%) vs 2 (3%); headache 6 (2%) vs 1 (2%); the level of evidence certainty was rated moderate. While compared to the other intervention or usual care group, nicotine e-cigarettes showed a change in body mass index (BMI) by MD 0.5 lower from baseline (95% CI 0.57 lower to 0.43 lower; n  = 1, 625 participants) and weight change by MD 0.7 kg lower from baseline (95% CI 0.88 lower to 0.52 lower; n  = 1, 625 participants) at 6 months follow-up. The level of evidence certainty was rated as moderate (rating down once for imprecision). The level of evidence certainty from the studies examining emotional state [ 69 ] and all-cause mortality [ 66 ] was very low (rated down once in one study and twice in the other for risk of bias, and once or twice for imprecision). Myers Smith 2022 captured mild adverse events [ 77 ]. At 6 months follow-up, in the EC arm, there was a report of dry mouth ( n  = 1) and cough/throat/chest irritation ( n  = 3), while in the comparator arm, there was a report of itchiness ( n  = 1) and nausea ( n  = 1). The level of evidence certainty was rated very low. Dawkins 2020 also captured mild adverse events using the 9-item patient health questionnaire (PHQ-9) for depression and the 7-item generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) questionnaire [ 80 ]. For the intervention group, the mean (SD) score for mental health at 24 weeks follow-up was 5.63 (6.34) for the GAD questionnaire and 7.12 (7.22) for the PHQ-9 questionnaire. For the comparator group, the mean (SD) score for mental health at 24 weeks follow-up was 12.70 (4.42) for the GAD questionnaire and 10.82 (7.23) for the PHQ-9 questionnaire. The level of evidence certainty was rated very low (Additional file 8: Appendix 8: Table S1, S2, S3, S7, S9, S12, and S15).

E-cigarettes with nicotine versus e-cigarettes without nicotine

Two studies compared e-cigarettes with nicotine to e-cigarettes without nicotine. In one study, 60 more people per 1000 (95% CI 7 fewer to 232 more; n  = 1300 participants) reported being smoking abstinent in the nicotine e-cigarette group compared to the group assigned non-nicotine e-cigarettes at 24-week follow-up [ 67 , 68 ]. In another study, 100 more people per 1000 (95% CI 59 fewer to 871 more; n  = 140 participants) reported being smoking abstinent in the nicotine e-cigarettes group compared to the non-nicotine e-cigarettes group [ 70 ]. This study offered nicotine patches and counseling sessions as standard care therapy in both groups. The level of evidence certainty was rated very low in both studies (Additional file 8: Appendix 8: Table S4 and S5). Both studies also measured smoking reduction outcomes between the comparative groups. There was a small reduction by MD 2.54 in the mean number of cigarettes smoked/day at the 24-week follow-up, with the level of evidence certainty rated very low (rating down once for RoB, indirectness, and imprecision) [ 70 ]. Also, for the reduction in smoking frequency at 24 and 52 weeks, 30 more people per 1000 (95% CI 47 fewer to 162 more; n  = 1300 participants), and 25 fewer people per 1000 (95% CI 72 fewer to 68 more; n  = 1300 participants) in the nicotine e-cigarette group showed > 50% reduction in the number of cigarettes smoked per day from baseline [ 67 , 68 ]. The level of evidence certainty was rated as very low (Additional file 8: Appendix 8: Table S4 and S5).

Three studies compared nicotine e-cigarettes to non-nicotine e-cigarettes with behavioral support offered as co-intervention in both groups [ 72 , 73 , 75 ]. Two studies measured continuous smoking abstinence (i.e., eCO levels verified as < 10 ppm or ≤ 7 ppm), and at 6 months of follow-up [ 72 , 75 ]. In one study, 28 more people per 1000 (95% CI 68 fewer to 229 more; n  = 1, 140 participants) in the nicotine e-cigarettes group reported being smoking abstinent at 6 months follow-up compared to the non-nicotine e-cigarettes group [ 75 ]. The level of evidence certainty was rated very low (rated down twice for RoB and imprecision). In another study, 32 more people per 1000 (95% CI 19 fewer to 196 more; n  = 1, 657 participants) in the nicotine e-cigarettes group reported being smoking abstinent compared to the non-nicotine e-cigarettes group [ 72 ]. The level of evidence certainty was rated low (rating down twice for imprecision). Considering the reduction in smoking frequency, all three studies assessed this measure across both groups with different outcome measures, i.e., daily reduced cigarette consumption by 50% or greater, change in mean number of cigarettes smoked since baseline, or reduction in eCO levels [ 72 , 73 , 75 ]. In one study, 118 more people per 1000 (95% CI 18 fewer to 298 more; n  = 1, 657 participants) reported a ≥ 50% reduction in daily cigarette consumption in the nicotine e-cigarettes group compared to the non-nicotine e-cigarettes group [ 72 ]. The level of evidence certainty was rated moderate (rating down once for imprecision). For the reduction in smoking frequency measured as change in mean number of daily cigarettes smoked since baseline at 24 weeks follow-up, the nicotine e-cigarette group had a − 10.7 change in mean number of daily cigarettes smoked since baseline with a − 9.1 change in the non-nicotine e-cigarette group [ 73 ]. The level of evidence certainty was rated very low (rated down twice for risk of bias and imprecision). Lastly, in Lucchiari 2020, the reduction in smoking frequency measured as a change in eCO levels, the MD was 3.27 parts per million (ppm) higher (95% CI 6.56 lower to 0.02 higher; n  = 1,140 participants) in the nicotine e-cigarette group than the non-nicotine e-cigarettes group at 6 months of follow-up [ 75 ]; although, the level of evidence certainty was rated very low (Additional file 8: Appendix 8: Table  S6 ).

Walker 2020 assessed nicotine e-cigarettes compared to non-nicotine e-cigarettes in addition to nicotine patches and behavioral support offered to both groups [ 76 ]. In terms of smoking abstinence defined as having eCO levels ≤ 9 ppm, 30 more people per 1000 (95% CI 1 more to 79 more; n  = 1999 participants) were abstinent at 6 months follow-up in the nicotine e-cigarettes group compared to those with non-nicotine e-cigarettes. In the same trial, 72 more people per 1000 (95% CI 18 more to 140 more; n  = 1999 participants) in the nicotine e-cigarettes group self-reported being point prevalent abstinent compared to the non-nicotine e-cigarettes group. Similarly, 72 more people per 1000 (95% CI 23 more to 138 more; n  = 1999 participants) in the nicotine e-cigarettes group self-reported being continuously abstinent. With the measure of reduction in smoking frequency, 60 more per 1000 (95% CI 4 fewer to 132 more; n  = 1, 999 participants) in the nicotine e-cigarettes reported ≥ 50% reduction in the number of cigarettes/day since baseline than the non-nicotine e-cigarette group. The level of evidence certainty was rated as moderate for all of these outcomes (rating down once for imprecision) (Additional file 8: Appendix 8: Table S8).

Carpenter 2023 compared e-cigarettes with the nicotine group to the other group provided with no e-cigarettes [ 79 ]. At 6-month follow-ups in the general population group, 55 more people per 1000 (95% CI 0 to 147 more; n  = 1, 638 participants) in the nicotine e-cigs group were smoking abstinent than the comparator group. The level of evidence certainty was rated as very low. In the high motivation to quit group, at 6 months follow-up, 34 more people per 1000 (95% CI 67 fewer to 229 more; n  = 1, 174 participants) reported smoking abstinence than the comparator group. Subsequently, in the low motivation to quit group, 63 more people per 1000 (95% CI 4 more to 195 more; n  = 1, 464 participants) in the nicotine e-cigarette group reported smoking abstinence than the comparator group. The level of evidence certainty was rated very low. For floating abstinence, in the general group, 44 more people per 1000 (95% CI 12 fewer to 132 more; n  = 1, 638 participants) reported having ever achieved 7 days of non-smoking throughout follow-up in the intervention group than the comparator group. For the high motivation to quit group, 121 more people per 1000 (95% CI 17 fewer to 378 more; n  = 1, 174 participants) reported having ever achieved 7 days of non-smoking throughout follow-up in the intervention group compared to the control group. For the low-motivation group, 17 more per 1000 (95% CI 35 fewer to 107 more; n  = 1, 464 participants) reported having ever achieved 7 days of non-smoking throughout follow-up in the intervention group compared to the control group. The level of evidence certainty was rated very low. For the reduction in smoking frequency, 97 more people per 1000 (95% CI 20 more to 205 more; n  = 1, 638 participants) in the general intervention group self-reported a smoking reduction in the number of daily cigarettes smoked by at least 50% than the comparator group. For the reduction in smoking frequency, 119 more people per 1000 (95% CI 28 fewer to 362 more; n  = 1, 174 participants) in the high motivation to quit group self-reported a smoking reduction in the number of daily cigarettes smoked by at least 50% than the comparator group. For the reduction in smoking frequency, 90 more people per 1000 (95% CI 6 more to 218 more; n  = 1, 464 participants) in the low motivation to quit group self-reported a smoking reduction in the number of daily cigarettes smoked by at least 50% than the comparator group. The level of evidence certainty was rated very low (Additional file 8: Appendix 8: Table S14).

Lucchiari 2022 compared e-cigarettes with a nicotine group to e-cigarettes without nicotine, and support (i.e., psychological counseling) was offered in both groups [ 81 ]. At 12 months follow-up, ten fewer people per 1000 (95% CI 124 fewer to 204 more; n  = 1, 140 participants) in the intervention group self-reported complete tobacco abstinence validated by eCO levels < / = 7 ppm than the comparator group. The level of evidence certainty was rated very low. Additionally, for a reduction in tobacco smoking frequency, smokers in the intervention arm smoked a mean of 16.18 tobacco cigarettes (SD = 7.23) versus a mean of 13.71 (7.22) cigarettes in the control arm. The level of evidence certainty was rated low. Lucchiari 2022 also compared the nicotine e-cigarette plus psychological counseling group to another group that offered psychological counseling only. At 12 months follow-up, 83 more people per 1000 (95% CI 45 fewer to 343 more; n  = 1, 140 participants) in the intervention group self-reported being smoking abstinent than the control group. The level of evidence certainty was rated very low. Additionally, for the reduction in smoking frequency/quantity, smokers in the intervention arm smoked a mean of 16.18 tobacco cigarettes (SD = 7.23) versus a mean of 13.93 (7.20) cigarettes smoked in the control arm at month 12. The level of evidence certainty was rated low (Additional file 8: Appendix 8: Table S16 and S17).

Foulds 2022 compared nicotine e-cigarettes with non-nicotine cigarette substitutes (i.e., plastic tubes with no electronics or aerosol) [ 82 ]. At 6 months follow-up, 77 more people per 1000 (95% CI 6 more to 289 more; n  = 1, 520 participants) in the intervention group self-reported smoking abstinence (i.e., validated by eCO < 10 ppm) than the comparator group. Additionally, 69 more people per 1000 (95% CI 3 more to 358 more; n  = 1, 520 participants) in the intervention group self-reported 28 plus days of smoking abstinence than the control group at 6 months follow-up. The level of evidence certainty was rated very low. Lastly, at 6 months follow-up, the mean (SD) number of days in the e-cigs with nicotine group where the participants reported being abstinent was 15.6 (36.4), and that in the control group was 5.3 (18.5). The mean difference (95% CI) reported between both groups was 10.29 (3.2 to 17.4). The evidence certainty was rated low. Foulds 2022 also compared nicotine e-cigarettes with non-nicotine e-cigarettes. At 6 months follow-up, 100 more people per 1000 (95% CI 7 more to 799 more; n  = 1, 520 participants) in the intervention group self-reported 7-day point prevalence abstinence (i.e., validated by eCO < 10 ppm) than the control group. Subsequently, 77 more people per 1000 (95% CI 3 more to 638 more; n  = 1, 520 participants) in the intervention group self-reported 28 plus days of smoking abstinence than the control group. The level of evidence certainty was rated very low. Lastly, at 12 months follow-up, the mean (SD) number of days in the e-cigs with nicotine group where the participants reported being totally abstinent was 15.6 (36.4), and that in the control group was 4.7 (17). The mean difference (95% CI) reported between both groups was 10.87 (3.9 to 17.8). The level of evidence certainty was rated low (Additional file 8: Appendix 8: Table S18 and S19).

Two studies (i.e., Baldassari 2018 and Caponnetto 2013) reported no SAEs but some AE complaints following e-cigarette use (i.e., abnormal dreams, anxiety, fatigue, headache, insomnia nausea) at 24 and 52 weeks of follow-up; however, there was little to no difference between groups, and the level of evidence certainty was unable to be assessed [ 67 , 70 ]. Bullen 2013 captured SAEs, and at 6 months follow-up, the nicotine e-cigarette group experienced 27 events (20%), and the control group had 5 events (14%); this was judged as little to no difference between groups as no events were related to product use. The level of evidence certainty was rated moderate (rating down once for imprecision) [ 72 ]. Likewise, Eisenberg 2020 also captured some SAEs adjudicated by an endpoint evaluation committee, and at 12 to 24 weeks follow-up, the nicotine e-cigarettes group had experienced 2 (1.6%), and the non-nicotine e-cigarette group had 2 (1.6%) events [ 73 ]; although, the level of evidence certainty was rated very low (rating down twice for risk of bias and imprecision). Two studies captured some mild non-serious AEs at different follow-up time points in both groups [ 73 , 75 ]. At 12 weeks, the intervention group had experienced 120 (94%), and the control group had experienced 118 (93%) AEs (i.e., cough, dry mouth, headache, dizziness) [ 73 ]. Likewise, the Lucchiari 2020 trial also reported side effects likely related to e-cigarette use at 3 and 6 months of follow-up in both groups [ 75 ]. At 3 months, 5.7% of the intervention group had experienced side effects (10% burning throat, 1.4% cough, 1.4% headache, 1.4% stomachache) and 2.9% in the control group (2.9% burning throat). At 6 months, 15.9% of the intervention group had experienced side effects (5.8% burning throat, 5.8% cough, 1.4% headache, 4.3% insomnia, 1.4% stomachache) and 5.6% in the control group (2.8% burning throat, 7% cough, 1.4% headache, 4.2% insomnia). The level of evidence certainty was rated as very low in both cases (rating down twice for RoB and imprecision). Walker 2020 also reported on participants with a SAE and there were 12 fewer people per 1000 (95% CI 27 fewer to 16 more; n  = 1, 999 participants) in the nicotine e-cigarettes group compared to the non-nicotine e-cigarettes group reporting them. This was judged as little to no difference as no events were related to the intervention in either group. The level of evidence certainty was rated as low (rating down once for imprecision). The same trial also reported possible adverse outcomes like change in BMI (i.e., MD 0.3 lower; 95% CI 0.32 lower to 0.28 lower; n  = 1, 999 participants) and weight (i.e., MD 0.7 kg lower; 95% CI 0.76 lower to 0.64 lower; n  = 1, 999 participants) from baseline at 6 months follow-up and the level of evidence certainty was rated as moderate (rating down once for imprecision). Some other possible AEs (i.e., vivid dreams, itchiness, dry cough, nausea) at 6 months were reported for the intervention and control group in the same trial; there was little to no difference in event rates in study arms. The level of evidence certainty was rated moderate (rated down once for imprecision). Carpenter 2023 captured mild adverse events [ 79 ]. Within the e-cigarette with nicotine group, 180 people (42%) reported a total of 360 adverse events (AEs), of which 7 (2%) were severe, 113 (31%) were moderate and 232 (64%) were mild. Most common AEs: Headaches (12%) and increased phlegm (12%). One serious event observed: asthma-induced hospitalization; possibly attributed to increased nebulizer use and/or e-cigs. Within the control group, 86 people (41%) reported a total of 197 AEs, of which 7 (4%) were severe, 60 (30%) were moderate, and 124 (63%) were mild/most common reported AEs: cough (20%), increased phlegm (18%) and headaches (8.1%). As a result, at 6 months follow-up, 12 more people per 1000 (95% CI 65 fewer to 102 more; n  = 1, 638 participants) in the intervention group reported mild adverse events than the control group. The level of evidence certainty was rated very low. Lucchiari 2022 also captured mild adverse events. In the e-cigarette with nicotine plus support group the mean (SD) scores for mental health at 12 months follow-up was 12.17 (2.20) for Anxiety and 9.13 (1.57) for Depression in the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). While in e-cigarette without nicotine plus support group, the mean (SD) scores for mental health at 12 months follow-up was 12.45 (2.37) for Anxiety and 8.90 (1.81) for Depression in the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). The level of evidence certainty was rated very low (Additional file 8: Appendix 8: Table S4, S5, S6,S8,S14, and S16).

E-cigarettes without nicotine versus other interventions

Walker 2020 compared e-cigarettes without nicotine with the offered behavioral support and nicotine patches to those provided with behavioral support and nicotine patches alone [ 76 ]. For the tobacco use abstinence outcome, compared to the other interventions group, 26 more people per 1000 in the e-cigarettes without nicotine group reported being smoking abstinent at the 6-month follow-up (95% CI 24 fewer to 122 more; n  = 1, 624 participants). In terms of smoking abstinence measured as eCO levels ≤ 9 ppm, 16 more people per 1000 in the e-cigarettes without nicotine group reported being smoking abstinent at 6 months follow-up (95% CI 12 fewer to 109 more; n  = 1, 624 participants). Also, 55 more people per 1000 in the e-cigarettes without nicotine group reported being point prevalent abstinent compared to the control group (95% CI 15 fewer to 171 more; n  = 1, 624 participants). For the reduction in smoking frequency measured, in the e-cigarettes without nicotine group 125 more people per 1000 reported ≥ 50% reduction in the number of cigarettes/days since baseline in comparison to those on other interventions and nicotine patches alone (95% CI 20 more to 269 more; n  = 1, 624 participants). The level of evidence certainty was rated low (rating down twice for imprecision) (Additional file 8: Appendix 8: Table 10).

Two small RCTs compared e-cigarettes without nicotine with behavioral support to the group offered behavioral support alone [ 73 , 75 ]. Considering smoking cessation, in one study, 57 more people per 1000 in the e-cigarette without nicotine group were smoking abstinent at the 6-month follow-up than the comparator group (95% CI 35 fewer to 282 more; n  = 1, 140 participants) [ 75 ]. This study reported a reduction in smoking frequency based on eCO levels of MD 1.24 particles per million (ppm) lower in the intervention group than the control group (95% CI 2.38 lower to 4.86 higher; n  = 1, 140 participants) [ 75 ]. Another study measured change in the mean number of daily cigarettes smoked since baseline, where the intervention group had a − 9.1 change and the control group had a − 5.5 change [ 73 ]. The level of evidence certainty was rated as very low for all these outcomes (rating down twice for RoB and twice for imprecision in all cases) (Additional file 8: Appendix 8: Table S11).

Walker 2020 assessed AE among participants on e-cigarettes without nicotine and those in other intervention groups [ 76 ]. For reporting of SAE, 20 more people per 1000 in the e-cigarette without nicotine group reported an SAE in comparison to the control group (95% CI 11 fewer to 121 more; n  = 1, 624 participants). This was judged as little to no difference given that no events were related to the intervention. The level of evidence certainty was rated as low (rating down twice for imprecision). With other possible adverse outcomes (i.e., change in BMI and weight from baseline), there was little to no difference between groups, and the level of evidence certainty was rated moderate. One small RCT reported little to no difference between groups with SAEs (the intervention group had experienced 2 (1.7%) and the control group had experienced 2 (1.7%) and mild AEs (i.e., cough, dry mouth, headache, rhinitis, throat irritation, dyspnea, sore throat) observed at weeks 12 to 24; however, the level of evidence certainty was rated very low (rating down twice for RoB and imprecision) (Additional file 8: Appendix 8: Table S10 and S11) [ 73 ].

This review found 18 studies presenting results from 17 trials, comparing e-cigarettes with nicotine to e-cigarettes without nicotine and e-cigarette (with or without nicotine) to other interventions (i.e., no intervention, waitlist, standard/usual care, quit advice, or behavioral support). Overall, ten studies provided evidence of the benefits of e-cigarettes in terms of smoking abstinence (i.e., measured through a reduction in eCO levels, 7-day point prevalence, or continuous) measured at various follow-up time points [ 67 , 70 , 72 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 81 , 82 ]. For the reduction in smoking frequency (i.e., measured as a reduction in biomarkers such as eCO levels, mean number of daily cigarettes, > 50% of reduction per day), measured at different follow-up time points, nine studies provided data [ 67 , 69 , 72 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 79 , 80 , 81 ] on benefits. Low, very low, or moderate evidence on smoking cessation from those studies indicates that e-cigarettes may or probably increase smoking cessation.

All studies reported on AEs are also labeled as side effects or complaints. AEs varied in how they were reported, for example, the total number of participants experiencing an event, the number of participants experiencing each event, the total number of events (i.e., where an individual participant may contribute to one or more events), if the event was related to the study intervention, and the level of severity of the event. There was also a variety of different devices and cartridges being used across studies. Although there is some guidance through the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) for abstinence in tobacco studies [ 84 ], there was currently no guidance for AEs or other outcomes identified in most included studies of this review, except in three [ 72 , 73 , 76 ]. In two studies, AEs were categorized as serious or non-serious based on the international guidelines or classifications in line with the recommended practice [ 72 , 76 ] while evaluated by an end-point evaluation committee in the third study [ 73 ]. Two studies evaluated mild AEs using ad hoc items (i.e., 9-item patient health questionnaire [PHQ-9], 7-item generalized anxiety disorder questionnaire, and Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale [HADS]) [ 80 , 81 ]. For AEs, 15 studies [ 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 79 , 80 , 81 ] reported mild AEs. Overall, there was little to no difference between groups in any of these outcomes, varying certainty of evidence.

Among the studies that reported serious AEs, none were suspected to be related to the study product, and the evidence was judged to be very low or low certainty depending on the study. There is some concern about the overall safety of e-cigarettes as those events are not attributable to the contents of the liquid, so considerable attention is being given to this as more information emerges. The duration of the studies included in our review was short, ranging from 12 weeks to 12 months, with most being less than 6 months. In some cases, the duration of the intervention (i.e., supplying e-cigarettes) was shorter than the follow-up period, and not all studies reported on how many individuals were still using the product at the longest follow-up time, which may not be enough for AEs attributed to long-term use to emerge.

The strengths of our work lie in the use of an a priori protocol, with any amendments reported and justified, and peer-review evaluation of our search strategies. Also, with input from the guideline working group, clinical experts, and patients, we assembled a group of outcomes of importance to those stakeholders. Although we aimed to update the 2016 Hartmann-Boyce systematic review [ 29 ], there has already been a 2022 update [ 21 ] of our candidate review with similar results as ours; however, it is a living systematic review with more updated and recent studies combined in its analyses. Also, with time and resource constraints, we could not formally analyze the results from those recent studies in our review. There are some important limitations to consider in our systematic review. Firstly, it became difficult to perform a meta-analysis and effect-size reporting, as we were unable to pool results due to clinical heterogeneity. Outcome reporting varied between studies. For example, reduction in smoking frequency using a self-report of ≥ 50% reduction in the number of cigarettes smoked daily or using biomarkers such as exhaled carbon monoxide, salivary cotinine, and salivary anabasine. Further, change in weight was reported as a percent change in weight from baseline and absolute weight change from baseline to follow-up (Additional file 10: Appendix 10).

Several studies did not provide sufficient details, leading to unclear judgments in the RoB assessments. Allocation concealment was of particular concern. Study authors would benefit from reporting guidelines, specifically the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist [ 85 ], which provides a minimum set of recommendations for reporting randomized trials. Outcome switching, the failure to report pre-specified outcomes without justification, is commonly observed among academic papers [ 86 , 87 ] and can present problems in interpreting results. Several studies in this review had differing outcomes reported in the trial registry or methods section than what was reported in the results section. Any deviations from the protocol should be reported and justified [ 85 ]. For example, in Cravo 2016 [ 65 ], the only two outcomes reported in the clinical trials registry (NCT02029196) are AEs and exhaled carbon monoxide. This study also provided several other outcomes (e.g., vital signs, lung function tests, hematology) in the methods section under study outcomes. Likewise, Holliday 2019 mentioned some primary outcomes (e.g., Periodontal Inflamed Surface Area [PISA]) as listed in the trial registry and not in the study, while some were not (e.g., QoL) in the trial registry. Baldassari 2019 and Lucchiari 2020 had no information on the strategy for handling missing data, data collection of severe AE, and other missing/incomplete outcomes (e.g., results of relapse and AE, Activity and lifestyle, 12 months follow-up). Carpenter 2017 lacked details on the number of participants contributing to the data [ 66 ], and Adriaens 2014, Myers Smith 2022, Xu 2023, and Carpenter 2023 lacked reporting of AE [ 71 , 77 , 78 , 79 ]. We could not find a justification for these changes. However, with the knowledge about how factors, including exposure to tobacco in the social environment and permissive attitude towards smoking, lower socioeconomic status, or higher levels of psychological distress led to smoking disparities in vulnerable population groups (i.e., Indigenous Canadians, those with incomplete high school education or with addiction disorders and mental illness), we did not focus on those groups and have considered it as another study limitation [ 88 ]. Also, it was out of our scope, and we might consider capturing the subgroup data in our future review.

It may be difficult to perform a trial in which all participants randomized to e-cigarette only used this and no other methods (e.g., behavioral therapy, pharmacotherapy) and where the control group only used what was assigned to them, but it is important to note that any other co-interventions received (by design) or used (unintended participant use) during the trial could impact any of the outcome results. We acknowledge another potential limitation as the chances of developing nicotine dependence post-e-cig use as a therapeutic intervention for smoking cessation; however, the evidence is limited [ 89 , 90 ]. We also acknowledge a potential risk of missing trials in languages other than English and French, as there were 52 potentially relevant studies published in other languages. Additionally, we were unable to retrieve a full-text publication for 45 records; however, as a part of the verification, we searched the bibliographies of 12 relevant systematic reviews published from 2016 to 2019, none of which included any of these studies (Additional file 10: Appendix 10).

Conclusions

This systematic review provides an evidence synthesis on e-cigarettes’ effectiveness; the data surrounding benefits (e.g., smoking cessation and reduction in smoking frequency) has small or moderate effect sizes with low to moderate evidence certainty for certain comparisons, and very low certainty for others, indicating that e-cigarettes may or probably increase smoking cessation. Likewise, for harms related to e-cigarette use, most studies showed little to no difference between the intervention and control group with low to very low evidence certainty. Also, the duration of studies varied from 12 weeks to 12 months, with most measuring outcomes under 6 months, which may not be long-term enough for attributed AEs to emerge. Consequently, the lack of evidence on long-term benefits (cessation) and potential harms of e-cigarette use in this review suggests an evidence gap that further necessitates more research.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary information files].

Abbreviations

A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews

Adverse events

Carbon monoxide

• Electronic cigarettes

Exhaled carbon monoxide

Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation

Nicotine replacement therapy

Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

Randomized controlled trial

Serious adverse event

WHO global report on trends in prevalence of tobacco use 2000–2025, fourth edition. n.d. https://www.who.int/publications-detail-redirect/9789240039322 . (Accessed 2 Mar 2023).

WHO report on the global tobacco epidemic 2021: addressing new and emerging products. n.d. https://www.who.int/publications-detail-redirect/9789240032095 . (Accessed 2 Mar 2023).

Canadian Tobacco and Nicotine Survey (CTNS): summary of results for 2022 2023. https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/canadian-tobacco-nicotine-survey/2022-summary.html . (Accessed 7 Feb 2024).

Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation| Canada. Inst Health Metr Eval 2015. https://www.healthdata.org/canada . (Accessed 2 Mar 2023).

Murray CJL, Aravkin AY, Zheng P, Abbafati C, Abbas KM, Abbasi-Kangevari M, et al. Global burden of 87 risk factors in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. The Lancet. 2020;396:1223–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(20)30752-2 .

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Reid R, Pritchard G, Walker K, Aitken D, Mullen K-A, Pipe A. Managing smoking cessation. CMAJ. 2016;188:17–8.

Article   Google Scholar  

Siu A. Behavioral and pharmacotherapy interventions for tobacco smoking cessation in adults, including pregnant women: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2015;163:622–34.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Personal habits and indoor combustions. the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC); [cited 2024]. Available from: https://publications.iarc.fr/Book-And-Report-Series/Iarc-Monographs-On-The-Identification-Of-Carcinogenic-Hazards-To-Humans/Personal-Habits-And-Indoor-Combustions-2012 .

Global Initiative for Asthma. Global strategy for asthma management and prevention. 2018.

Google Scholar  

Shields M, Garner RE, Wilkins K. Dynamics of smoking cessation and health-related quality of life among Canadians. Health Rep. 2013;24:11.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Smoking cessation: a report of the surgeon general. Washington (DC): U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health; 2020.

Pirie K, Peto R, Reeves GK, Green J, Beral V. The 21st century hazards of smoking and benefits of stopping: a prospective study of one million women in the UK. Lancet. 2013;381:133–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61720-6 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Cessation assistance | Tobacco Use in Canada. n.d. https://uwaterloo.ca/tobacco-use-canada/quitting-smoking/cessation-assistance . (Accessed 2 Mar 2023).

Who report on the global tobacco epidemic 2019: Offer help to quit tobacco use. World Health Organization; 2019. [cited 2024]. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241516204 .

Kalkhoran S, Glantz SA. E-cigarettes and smoking cessation in real-world and clinical settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Respir Med. 2016;4:116–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-2600(15)00521-4 .

Bhatnagar A, Payne TJ, Robertson RM. Is there a role for electronic cigarettes in tobacco cessation? J Am Heart Assoc. 2019;8. https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.119.012742 .

Farsalinos KE, Gillman G. Carbonyl emissions in e-cigarette aerosol: a systematic review and methodological considerations. Front Physiol. 2018;8:1119. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2017.01119 .

Smoking: E-cigarettes: An alternative to tobacco, or a quitting aid? Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care. U.S. National Library of Medicine; 2022. [cited 2024]. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK453108/?report=printable .

Goniewicz ML, Kuma T, Gawron M, Knysak J, Kosmider L. Nicotine levels in electronic cigarettes. Nicotine Tob Res. 2013;15:158–66. https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/nts103 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Goniewicz ML, Hajek P, McRobbie H. Nicotine content of electronic cigarettes, its release in vapour and its consistency across batches: regulatory implications. Addiction. 2014;109:500–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.12410 .

Hartmann-Boycea J, Lindsona N, Butler AR, McRobbie H, Bullen C, Begh R, et al. Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010216.pub7 .

Health Canada. Vaping and quitting smoking 2020. https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/smoking-tobacco/vaping/smokers.html . (Accessed 2 Mar 2021).

Tobacco: Preventing uptake, promoting quitting and treating dependence: Guidance. 2023. [cited 2024]. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng209 .

The New Zealand guidelines for helping people to stop Smoking. Ministry of Health, New Zealand Government; 2021. [cited 2024]. Available from: https://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/documents/publications/the-new-zealand-guidelines-for-helping-people-to-stop-smoking-2021.pdf .

US Preventive Services Task Force, Krist AH, Davidson KW, Mangione CM, Barry MJ, Cabana M, et al. Interventions for tobacco smoking cessation in adults, including pregnant persons: US preventive services task force recommendation statement. JAMA. 2021;325:265. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.25019 .

Supporting smoking cessation: a guide for health professionals, RACGP guideline. n.d. https://www.racgp.org.au/clinical-resources/clinical-guidelines/key-racgp-guidelines/view-all-racgp-guidelines/supporting-smoking-cessation/about-this-guideline . (Accessed 8 Feb 2023).

Nicotine e-cigarettes for smoking cessation: Evidence to support guideline development Report prepared for the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners. The Australian National University; 2021. Available from: https://www.racgp.org.au/FSDEDEV/media/documents/Clinical%20Resources/Appendix-Evidence-to-Decision-Report.pdf .

Gentry S, Forouhi NG, Notley C. Are electronic cigarettes an effective aid to smoking cessation or reduction among vulnerable groups? A systematic review of quantitative and qualitative evidence. Nicotine Tob Res Off J Soc Res Nicotine Tob. 2019;21:602–16. https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/nty054 .

Hartmann-Boyce J, McRobbie H, Lindson N, Bullen C, Begh R, Theodoulou A, Notley C, Rigotti NA, Turner T, Butler AR, Fanshawe TR, Hajek P. Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021;4(4):CD010216. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010216.pub5 .

El Dib R, Suzumura EA, Akl EA, Gomaa H, Agarwal A, Chang Y, et al. Electronic nicotine delivery systems and/or electronic non-nicotine delivery systems for tobacco smoking cessation or reduction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2017;7:e012680. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012680 .

Lam C, West A. Are electronic nicotine delivery systems an effective smoking cessation tool? Can J Respir Ther CJRT Rev Can Ther Respir RCTR. 2015;51:93–8.

Peckham E, Brabyn S, Cook L, Tew G, Gilbody S. Smoking cessation in severe mental ill health: what works? an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Psychiatry. 2017;17:252. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-017-1419-7 .

Carrie D. Patnode, Jillian T. Henderson, Jamie H. Thompson, et al. Behavioral Counseling and Pharmacotherapy Interventions for Tobacco Cessation in Adults, Including Pregnant Women: A Review of Reviews for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2015;163:608–21. Available from: https://doi.org/10.7326/M15-0171 .

Lindson-Hawley N, Hartmann-Boyce J, Fanshawe TR, Begh R, Farley A, Lancaster T. Interventions to reduce harm from continued tobacco use. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;10:CD005231. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005231.pub3 .

Vanderkam P, Boussageon R, Underner M, Langbourg N, Brabant Y, Binder P, et al. Efficacy and security of electronic cigarette for tobacco harm reduction: systematic review and meta-analysis. Presse Medicale Paris Fr. 1983;2016(45):971–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lpm.2016.05.026 .

Malas M, van der Tempel J, Schwartz R, Minichiello A, Lightfoot C, Noormohamed A, et al. Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation: a systematic review. Nicotine Tob Res Off J Soc Res Nicotine Tob. 2016;18:1926–36. https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/ntw119 .

Khoudigian S, Devji T, Lytvyn L, Campbell K, Hopkins R, O’Reilly D. The efficacy and short-term effects of electronic cigarettes as a method for smoking cessation: a systematic review and a meta-analysis. Int J Public Health. 2016;61:257–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00038-016-0786-z .

Chen D, Wu L-T. Smoking cessation interventions for adults aged 50 or older: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2015;154:14–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2015.06.004 .

Rahman MA, Hann N, Wilson A, Mnatzaganian G, Worrall-Carter L. E-cigarettes and smoking cessation: evidence from a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE. 2015;10:e0122544. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0122544 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Gualano MR, Passi S, Bert F, La Torre G, Scaioli G, Siliquini R. Electronic cigarettes: assessing the efficacy and the adverse effects through a systematic review of published studies. J Public Health Oxf Engl. 2015;37:488–97. https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdu055 .

Franck C, Budlovsky T, Windle SB, Filion KB, Eisenberg MJ. Electronic cigarettes in North America: history, use, and implications for smoking cessation. Circulation. 2014;129:1945–52. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.113.006416 .

Pepper JK, Brewer NT. Electronic nicotine delivery system (electronic cigarette) awareness, use, reactions and beliefs: a systematic review. Tob Control. 2014;23:375–84. https://doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051122 .

Ali I, Singla A, Malhi R, Niraj L, Dhama K. Role of e-cigarettes in smoking cessation: a systematic review. J Indian Assoc Public Health Dent. 2018;16:94–102.

Health Technology Assessment (HTA) of smoking cessation interventions. Health Information and Quality Authority (HIQA); 2017. [cited 2024]. Available from: https://www.hiqa.ie/reports-and-publications/health-technology-assessment/hta-smoking-cessation-interventions .

Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, Thuku M, Hamel C, Moran J, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ. 2017;358:j4008.

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(264–9):W64.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Hersi M, Traversy G, Thombs BD, Beck A, Skidmore B, Groulx S, et al. Effectiveness of stop smoking interventions among adults: protocol for an overview of systematic reviews and an updated systematic review. Syst Rev. 2019;8:28. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-018-0928-x .

McGowan J, Sampson M, Salzwedel DM, Cogo E, Foerster V, Lefebvre C. PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 guideline statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;75:40–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.01.021 .

Thomson Reuters. Reference Manager 12. New York: Thomson Reuters; 2008. Available from: Reference Manager 12 for Windows ( researchsoftware.com ).

Evidence Partners. DistillerSR. Ottawa, Canada;2011.  https://www.evidencepartners.com/ .

Khangura S, Konnyu K, Cushman R, Grimshaw J, Moher D. Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach. Syst Rev. 2012;1:10. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-1-10 .

Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Sterne JAC. Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. The Cochrane Collaboration; [cited 2024]. Available from: https://training.cochrane.org/sites/training.cochrane.org/files/public/uploads/resources/Handbook5_1/Chapter_8_Handbook_5_2_8.pdf .

Checklists. SIGN. n.d. https://testing36.scot.nhs.uk . (Accessed 31 Aug 2023).

Balshem H, Stevens A, Ansari M, Norris S, Kansagara D, Shamliyan T, et al. Finding grey literature evidence and assessing for outcome and analysis reporting biases when comparing medical interventions: ahrq and the effective health care program. In: Methods Guide Eff. Comp. Eff. Rev. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2013.

The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager (RevMan). Copenhagen. 2015: The Nordic Cochrane Centre; n.d. RevMan: Systematic review and meta-analysis tool for researchers worldwide | Cochrane RevMan.

Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care Procedure Manual 2014. https://canadiantaskforce.ca/methods/ .

GRADE Working Group. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2004;328:1490.

Article   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Tseng T-Y, Ostroff JS, Campo A, Gerard M, Kirchner T, Rotrosen J, et al. A randomized trial comparing the effect of nicotine versus placebo electronic cigarettes on smoking reduction among young adult smokers. Nicotine Tob Res Off J Soc Res Nicotine Tob. 2016;18:1937–43. https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/ntw017 .

Hajek P, Phillips-Waller A, Przulj D, Pesola F, Myers Smith K, Bisal N, et al. A randomized trial of e-cigarettes versus nicotine-replacement therapy. N Engl J Med. 2019;380:629–37. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1808779 .

Veldheer S, Yingst J, Midya V, Hummer B, Lester C, Krebs N, et al. Pulmonary and other health effects of electronic cigarette use among adult smokers participating in a randomized controlled smoking reduction trial. Addict Behav. 2019;91:95–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2018.10.041 .

Felicione NJ, Enlow P, Elswick D, Long D, Sullivan CR, Blank MD. A pilot investigation of the effect of electronic cigarettes on smoking behavior among opioid-dependent smokers. Addict Behav. 2019;91:45–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2018.07.003 .

Polosa R, Morjaria JB, Caponnetto P, Prosperini U, Russo C, Pennisi A, et al. Evidence for harm reduction in COPD smokers who switch to electronic cigarettes. Respir Res. 2016;17:166.

Polosa R, Morjaria JB, Caponnetto P, Battaglia E, Russo C, Ciampi C, et al. Blood pressure control in smokers with arterial hypertension who switched to electronic cigarettes. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2016;13:1123.

Russo C, Cibella F, Mondati E, Caponnetto P, Frazzetto E, Caruso M, et al. Lack of substantial post-cessation weight increase in electronic cigarettes users. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15:581. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15040581 .

Cravo AS, Bush J, Sharma G, Savioz R, Martin C, Craige S, et al. A randomised, parallel group study to evaluate the safety profile of an electronic vapour product over 12 weeks. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol RTP. 2016;81(Suppl 1):S1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2016.10.003 .

Carpenter MJ, Heckman BW, Wahlquist AE, Wagener TL, Goniewicz ML, Gray KM, et al. A naturalistic, randomized pilot trial of e-cigarettes: uptake, exposure, and behavioral effects. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev Publ Am Assoc Cancer Res Cosponsored Am Soc Prev Oncol. 2017;26:1795–803. https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-17-0460 .

Caponnetto P, Campagna D, Cibella F, Morjaria JB, Caruso M, Russo C, et al. EffiCiency and Safety of an eLectronic cigAreTte (ECLAT) as tobacco cigarettes substitute: a prospective 12-month randomized control design study. PLoS ONE. 2013;8:e66317. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0066317 .

Russo C, Cibella F, Caponnetto P, Campagna D, Maglia M, Frazzetto E, et al. Evaluation of post cessation weight gain in a 1-year randomized smoking cessation trial of electronic cigarettes. Sci Rep. 2016;6:18763. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep18763 .

Holliday R, Preshaw PM, Ryan V, Sniehotta FF, McDonald S, Bauld L, et al. A feasibility study with embedded pilot randomised controlled trial and process evaluation of electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation in patients with periodontitis. Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2019;5:74. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40814-019-0451-4 .

Baldassarri SR, Bernstein SL, Chupp GL, Slade MD, Fucito LM, Toll BA. Electronic cigarettes for adults with tobacco dependence enrolled in a tobacco treatment program: a pilot study. Addict Behav. 2018;80:1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2017.11.033 .

Adriaens K, Van Gucht D, Declerck P, Baeyens F. Effectiveness of the electronic cigarette: an eight-week Flemish study with six-month follow-up on smoking reduction, craving and experienced benefits and complaints. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2014;11:11220–48. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph111111220 .

Bullen C, Howe C, Laugesen M, McRobbie H, Parag V, Williman J, et al. Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Lond Engl. 2013;382:1629–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61842-5 .

Eisenberg MJ, Hébert-Losier A, Windle SB, Greenspoon T, Brandys T, Fülöp T, et al. Effect of e-cigarettes plus counseling vs counseling alone on smoking cessation: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2020;324:1844–54. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.18889 .

Flacco ME, Ferrante M, Fiore M, Marzuillo C, La Vecchia C, Gualano MR, Liguori G, Fragassi G, Carradori T, Bravi F, Siliquini R, Ricciardi W, Villari P, Manzoli L. Cohort study of electronic cigarette use: safety and effectiveness after 4 years of follow-up. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2019;23(1):402–12. https://doi.org/10.26355/eurrev_201901_16789 .

Lucchiari C, Masiero M, Mazzocco K, Veronesi G, Maisonneuve P, Jemos C, et al. Benefits of e-cigarettes in smoking reduction and in pulmonary health among chronic smokers undergoing a lung cancer screening program at 6 months. Addict Behav. 2020;103:106222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2019.106222 .

Walker N, Parag V, Verbiest M, Laking G, Laugesen M, Bullen C. Nicotine patches used in combination with e-cigarettes (with and without nicotine) for smoking cessation: a pragmatic, randomised trial. Lancet Respir Med. 2020;8:54–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-2600(19)30269-3 .

Myers Smith K, Phillips-Waller A, Pesola F, McRobbie H, Przulj D, Orzol M, et al. E-cigarettes versus nicotine replacement treatment as harm reduction interventions for smokers who find quitting difficult: randomized controlled trial. Addict Abingdon Engl. 2022;117:224–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.15628 .

Xu Y, Goldenson NI, Prakash S, Augustson EM, Shiffman S. Randomized trial assessing the effect of the JUUL system on switching away from cigarettes and smoking reduction among U.S. adults who smoke cigarettes. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2024;32:3–15. https://doi.org/10.1037/pha0000698 .

Carpenter MJ, Wahlquist AE, Dahne J, Gray KM, Cummings KM, Warren G, et al. Effect of unguided e-cigarette provision on uptake, use, and smoking cessation among adults who smoke in the USA: a naturalistic, randomised, controlled clinical trial. EClinicalMedicine. 2023;63:102142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.102142 .

Dawkins L, Bauld L, Ford A, Robson D, Hajek P, Parrott S, et al. A cluster feasibility trial to explore the uptake and use of e-cigarettes versus usual care offered to smokers attending homeless centres in Great Britain. PLoS ONE. 2020;15:e0240968. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240968 .

Lucchiari C, Masiero M, Mazzocco K, Veronesi G, Maisonneuve P, Jemos C, et al. Nicotine-free e-cigarettes might promote tobacco smoking reduction better than nicotine delivery devices: results of a double-blind randomized controlled trial at 1 year. Curr Oncol Tor Ont. 2022;29:8579–90. https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol29110676 .

Foulds J, Cobb CO, Yen M-S, Veldheer S, Brosnan P, Yingst J, et al. Effect of electronic nicotine delivery systems on cigarette abstinence in smokers with no plans to quit: exploratory analysis of a randomized placebo-controlled trial. Nicotine Tob Res Off J Soc Res Nicotine Tob. 2022;24:955–61. https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/ntab247 .

Cravo AS, Bush J, Sharma G, Savioz R, Martin C, Craige S, et al. A randomised, parallel group study to evaluate the safety profile of an electronic vapour product over 12 weeks. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2016;81:S1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2016.10.003 .

Hughes JR, Keely JP, Niaura RS, Ossip-Klein DJ, Richmond RL, Swan GE. Measures of abstinence in clinical trials: issues and recommendations. Nicotine Tob Res. 2003;5:13–25. https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/5.1.13 .

Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gøtzsche PC, Devereaux PJ, et al. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ. 2010;340:c869. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c869 .

Goldacre B. Make journals report clinical trials properly. Nat News. 2016;530:7. https://doi.org/10.1038/530007a .

Heneghan C, Goldacre B, Mahtani KR. Why clinical trial outcomes fail to translate into benefits for patients. Trials. 2017;18:122. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-017-1870-2 .

Melamed OC, Zawertailo L, Schwartz R, Buckley L, Selby P. Protecting vulnerable groups from tobacco-related harm during and following the COVID-19 pandemic. Health Promot Chronic Dis Prev Can. 2021;41:282–7. https://doi.org/10.24095/hpcdp.41.10.02 .

Banks E, Yazidjoglou A, Brown S, Nguyen M, Martin M, Beckwith K, et al. Electronic cigarettes and health outcomes: umbrella and systematic review of the global evidence. Med J Aust. 2023;218:267–75. https://doi.org/10.5694/mja2.51890 .

Hanewinkel R, Niederberger K, Pedersen A, Unger JB, Galimov A. E-cigarettes and nicotine abstinence: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Eur Respir Rev. 2022;31:210215. https://doi.org/10.1183/16000617.0215-2021 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge the contribution of Raymond Daniel who helped with managing citations. We also acknowledge Wei Chen for providing statistical support. The authors also acknowledge Greg Traversy from the Public Health Agency of Canada for his input and direction during project scoping and refinement. We would also like to acknowledge the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care members for their input and for reviewing the manuscript.

Funding for this evidence review was provided by the Public Health Agency of Canada and supported all phases of conduct of the evidence review. The staff of the Global Health and Guidelines Division at the Public Health Agency of Canada reviewed and provided input during the protocol and manuscript development but were not involved in the study selection or interpretation of the findings. Final decisions were made by the review team. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the views of the Government of Canada.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Epidemiology and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada

Niyati Vyas, Alexandria Bennett, Nicole Shaver, Douglas Manuel, Beverley J. Shea, Julian Little & David Moher

Knowledge Synthesis Group, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Centre for Practice-Changing Research, Box 201, 501 Smyth Road, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8L6, Canada

Candyce Hamel, Andrew Beck, Micere Thuku, Mona Hersi, Becky Skidmore, Brian Hutton, Smita Pakhale, Justin Presseau & Adrienne Stevens

Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada

Brian Hutton, Douglas Manuel, Smita Pakhale, Justin Presseau, Beverley J. Shea & David Moher

The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, ON, Canada

Douglas Manuel & Smita Pakhale

Department of Otolaryngology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada

Douglas Manuel

Department of Family Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada

Patient Representative, Vancouver, BC, Canada

Matt Morrow

School of Psychology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada

Justin Presseau

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

CH contributed to the conception and design of the work, participated in all aspects of the review, and drafted the original version of the manuscript. ABeck performed all aspects of the search update and revisions to the manuscript. MT performed study selection. MH contributed to the conception and design of the work. ABennett and NS participated in all aspects of the search update, oversaw all aspects of the review, provided methodological expertise at all phases, and performed certainty of evidence appraisals and manuscript revisions. NV performed manuscript revisions. BS developed the search strategy and provided text for the manuscript. BH, DManuel, MM, SP, JP, BJS, and VW provided methodological and clinical expertise. DM and JL contributed to the conception and design of the work and provided methodological input at all phases. AS contributed to the conception and design of the work and drafted the original version of the manuscript. All authors critically reviewed the manuscript and provided feedback. The authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexandria Bennett .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1: appendix 1. prisma checklist., additional file 2: appendix 2. search strategy., additional file 3: appendix 3. eligibility criteria (picos)., additional file 4: appendix 4. list of excluded studies., additional file 5: appendix 5. tobacco effect judgements., additional file 6: appendix 6. characteristics of included studies., additional file 7: appendix 7. results tables and rob assessments., additional file 8: appendix 8. grade evidence profile and summary of findings (sof) tables., additional file 9: appendix 9: included analyses., additional file 10: appendix 10. stakeholder feedback., rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Vyas, N., Bennett, A., Hamel, C. et al. Effectiveness of e-cigarettes as a stop smoking intervention in adults: a systematic review. Syst Rev 13 , 168 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-024-02572-7

Download citation

Received : 12 December 2023

Accepted : 23 May 2024

Published : 29 June 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-024-02572-7

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• E-cigarettes
• Smoking cessation
• Systematic review smoking intervention

Systematic Reviews

ISSN: 2046-4053

• Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
• General enquiries: [email protected]

• Skip to main content

The Bibliography and the Index: Dr. Ana Lučić’s Quest to Automate Peritextual Identification

July 12, 2024

Index, Table of Contents, Dedication, Bibliography: Beyond literary wayfinding, this text — known as peritext — can be both a valuable source for scholars researching texts at scale in areas such as publishing trends or popular references within a certain time period and a hindrance when they need to focus on “just the text.” Using the robust collection of the HathiTrust Digital Library and the tools for computational analysis provided by the HathiTrust Research Center , it is theoretically possible to query peritextual data. But there’s a catch — you need to be able to identify which content is coming from which parts of the text. While there is not currently a way to enable researchers to computationally discern between these textual elements, Dr. Ana Lučić and her research team aim to change that.

Dr. Lučić recently received a National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) Digital Humanities Advancement grant to pursue a project to automatically detect peritext and differentiate it from the core body of work. This would allow researchers to engage in research projects targeting peritextual elements of volumes in the HathiTrust Digital Library. We spoke with Ana recently to learn more about her project and its potential impact on computational scholarship using the HathiTrust Digital Library.

Dr. Ana Lučić is a Staff Research Scientist at the Illinois Applied Research Institute at the University of  Illinois at Urbana Champaign, and a PhD graduate of its School of Information Sciences, which co-hosts the HathiTrust Research Center. Ana specializes in natural language processing techniques, literature based discovery, data engineering and data management and deriving new knowledge from old data. In 2017, she and a team of researchers received an Advanced Collaborative Support award from the HathiTrust Research Center to pursue the Computational Support for Reading Chicago Reading . 

Tell me about your new research project funded through the National Endowment for the Humanities and what exactly you’ll be investigating through this work.

We have proposed to build a data set of approximately 1,000 fiction and nonfiction works that are available through the HathiTrust Digital Library. We would like to use these books that have been published throughout different decades of the twentieth century  to identify boundaries of the front matter and back matter. Front matter implies Title Page, Preface,  Introduction, and back matter implies a Bibliography, maybe an Index of Terms, perhaps a Conclusion or acknowledgements.

All of these elements are what some consider to be an essential part of the work that might or might not require separation from the core work when doing the analysis. Additionally, sometimes, it can be challenging to discern if the part of the work was created/added by the author themselves or by the publisher. But some would say that, for particular types of analyses,  separating front and back matter from core work can be beneficial. So we would like to identify manually in this data set the boundaries of the front matter and the back matter and then determine where the core work starts and where does it end. That would provide us the basis for building a predictive supervised model that would then hopefully allow us to predict these boundaries algorithmically in other works that are in the HathiTrust Digital Library.

Why is the distinction between the front matter, back matter, and core text important? 

When you compare the core content and the peritextual elements based on the features extracted from these elements, you can see that peritext can be modeled as an outlier of the core work. This prompted us [to ask] if we can identify these peritextual elements in an automated way. For the types of analyses that we would like to do, it would be helpful to know  exactly which structural part of the work the feature that we extracted from the text  came from, because we think that it is important. 

If, for example, you are analyzing how many times a place name was mentioned in the text and if you include bibliography in that analysis you might end up with lots of mentions of New York because New York is the mecca of the publishing world. And so a lot of publishers and a lot of works that were mentioned in the book might be referenced at the end. Then you can get a sense that this book contains a lot of references to New York, but actually they are mostly in the bibliography, and so they are not really in the core text. And what you would like to know is whether New York is mentioned in the core text, too, and if so, how it is being mentioned. That impacts a scholar’s understanding and analysis of a title or a group of titles.

Why use the HathiTrust Digital Library over another digital library? 

The titles [in HathiTrust] come from a lot of libraries throughout the United States and elsewhere and reflect the holdings of those libraries in some way, but those holdings include a very wide variety of works. We’ve decided that the HathiTrust collection is a very comprehensive resource in terms of the number of fiction and nonfiction titles that it holds and we have used it in the past. It has the tools and environments that we are used to working with like the secure data capsule , the Hathifiles f, and the digital library catalog.

How will you go about selecting titles for your study? 

We are not the only ones who are examining these questions. Other scholars are also interested in questions such as, how can we identify whether a work is fictional or primarily nonfictional? Ted Underwood , for example, has done a lot of work in trying to automatically identify fiction works that are featured in the HathiTrust Digital Library. He has released a list of works that their predictive method determined to be fiction. This is a useful list for us, because we are currently using it to randomly select works from it that were published in the twentieth century that we could possibly include in our data set. 

We are also going to use the help of the UIUC library to translate some of the categories into Library of Congress subject headings so that we can query the HathiTrust Digital Library. When we are going to select these 1,000 works, we are going more for a randomized search, because we think that will be more in line with what the user might see when they search in the digital library.

We’ll be selecting both fiction and nonfiction. Some of the works are currently in the public domain. I think that we will have a lot more works that are still under copyright, and we are actually relying on HathiTrust to allow us access to [that work] so that we can demarcate the boundaries of front matter and back matter. In addition to extracting features from the full-text, we also plan to use the non-consumptive features that are available through the Extracted Features dataset created by HathiTrust Research Center team.. So, we will be building two models, one that relies on the features extracted from full text and the other that relies on non-consumptive features available through the Extracted Features dataset.

We are excited to observe what the model will be able to tell us. We believe that we will probably be able to see some trends and some indication of where it is likely that the front matter ends and back matter begins. 

Describe the overview of the phases and tools you’ll be using for your research.

We are still in the early phases of the project although we have identified the works that will go in the dataset. We have also developed a user interface inside a secure data capsule that will facilitate the annotation of the selected works and their digitized pages inside the capsule. 

We are currently at the annotation phase of the project that will be preceded by the process of establishing  inter-annotator agreement between different annotators. This process will help us establish how much agreement there is between annotators on the task of establishing front matter, core work, and back matter.. The annotation phase is expected to complete by the end of the summer. .

After the annotation phase, we will have the boundaries of the structure of the work based on which we will be able to extract features from front matter, core work, and back matter and start training the model to learn the separation boundary between these elements of the work. 

We also plan to create visualizations to assist users in seeing what they can expect from this work. Such as, “Hey, this work has a lot of back matter.” or “This work has a lot at the front.” Then there would be a period of manual evaluation and validation of our results, and the final stage would involve establishing if any of these methods can be potentially integrated with the HathiTrust Digital Library. So this is the [ultimate] goal and our hypothesis is that this visualization  would be useful to  other readers and researchers who apply computational analysis methods on the works inside the HathiTrust digital library.

What will be a possible application of this model?

I believe that these methods can allow researchers, for example, to analyze the history of the book and history of publishing. If you could have a method that can accurately identify front matter, you could then identify a workset from the HathiTrust Digital Library, and then observe how publishers have decorated the book throughout decades or throughout centuries and how and in what ways these practices fluctuated. 

[These methods] can help investigate questions about how we access anything that we read and what surrounds it.  I think this is an important question. This still requires lots of research into what surrounds the book and what we actually read in the book, because we frequently tend to skip certain pages. This is something that I would like to do in the future, and I’m hoping others would be able to do so.

In attempting to create an automated method for identifying peritext — one that other researchers can use off-the-shelf for investigations in the HathiTrust Digital Library — Dr. Lučić’s team will contribute to the common good of computational literary analysis. With 18+ million titles in the collection and an advanced research environment at the HathiTrust Research Center that includes copyrighted text for non-consumptive research, HathiTrust is uniquely positioned to serve as the repository source for the research grant.