Most professionalsin the medical and scientific fields communicate with each other throughpublished research journals that give other scholars and principal investigatorsan insight of their collective findings and help them keep up to date with the latestinformation that is uncovered with every passing day. These literatures caneither be a reanalyzed or confirmation of a previous discovery that can helpstrengthen a proven theory or an unique or even controversial proposal that canchallenge even the most commonly assumed notions in science. The article I haveselected is titled “Cochlear Implantationof Bilaterally Deafened Patients with Tinnitus Induces Sustained Decrease ofTinnitus-Related Distress” and the aim of this article is to raise awarenessof the large number of patients who are bilaterally hard of hearing that sufferfrom tinnitus and if cochlear implantation (CI) which helps treat most hearing disabilitiesin patients can also alleviate tinnitus-related distress (Knopke et al.,2017).The article is a peer-reviewed, published research analysis of an experimentinvolving a sample of patients that all have profound hearing loss with speechrecognition and their hearing capabilities, overall health-related quality oflife, and tinnitus-induced stress over the course of two years after CI surgery(Knopke et al.
,2017). The goal of this article is to determine if auditory rehabilitationcan in fact improve not only hearing abilities in patients, but also symptomsthat are associated with hearing loss, mainly tinnitus. The organization and structureof this research article is standard format of a typical research journal inmost scientific publications which begins with an abstract that is a summarizedversion of the scientific journal and is almost a “snapshot” of the paper as awhole. Introduction follows, which gives a brief description of the disease,impairment, or illness and how this topic of interest is significant and with additionalresearch can benefit either a single research patient, a collection of peopleinflicted, or even the society as a whole. Bilateral hearing impairment whichis the main reason for this study is stated to impact 30 million Americans fromthe ages of 12 and above with reported instances of tinnitus inflicting almost90 percent of those patients (Knopke et al.,2017).
The introduction also includes theirhypothesis or question that is meant to be answered through their experimentationand trials. The methodology section of the study is a detailed and orderlycompilation of the procedures done to acquire the data from the experiment.This part is extremely critical as nothing in science is absolute and manyreplications of an experiment with similar results must be done for the data tobe verified and considered proven evidence in the scientific world. The resultssegment of the article consists mainly of charts, diagrams, and tables of data thatgives the audience a visual representation of the information gathered withsmall paragraphs under each figure to streamline the data shown.
Examples of somestatistics collected was results of the Nijmegen Cochlear Implantation Questionnaire(NCIQ) from patients from before CI surgery and 6,12, and 24 months post surgery.The scale helped measures basic and advanced sound perception, self-esteem, andsocial activity which are all hallmarks of determining the stage of qualify oflife for a patient. This was shown on the article with a box-and-whisker plotconsists of the mean and the standard deviation within a confidence of 95% (Knopkeet al.,2017).
The conclusion and discussion of the experiment rounds out theend of the article and provides an interpretation of the results and if thedata supports or refutes the original hypothesis stated at the beginning of thepaper. The general consensus from the researchers state that following CI, themajority of patients experienced a significant difference in tinnitus-related symptomsand an increase in the overall quality of life and further supports theirhypothesis that tinnitus remains a neglected and overlooked handicap that many patientswith hearing loss face. (Knopke et al.,2017). Scientific writing tends to bedifferent from other articles from other professions as their audience anddiscourse community in question is not those of the general public, but ofother researchers and professors who also happen to be performing experimentsrelated to the discipline.
As such, thestyle of writing is very technical with a lot of terminology, statistics, figures,and data that might not widely understood or known to the untrained eye. Mostof these publications are written in a passive voice in present tense and referthemselves as “we” as opposed to “I”. The point of the scientific article is topresent the analysis of the data found in the experiment with a completedunbiased approach, portraying as little personality and opinion as much aspossible as to not deter from the hard evidence gathered and to promote theissue for other investigators can use this research as a foundation to expandand build on the facts and discussion presented in the article. In conclusion, the article presentsa team of researchers’ in-depth analysis on an experiment that is relevant tomillions of people around the world with the mindset that this informationcould have an impact on how we treat patients with hearing loss.
The most intriguingaspect of these research publications that are different from most papers inother professions is that these articles are never “complete” as many revisionsare made from other researchers in this specialized field as more informationand research is made on the topic. Further research and perspectives from otherscholars can help answer the questions presented by the original authors andhelp view the issue in a different angle that may have been overlooked atfirst. As medical and scientific advancements come into light in the future,publications like these can help raising scientists reflect and use thesepapers as powerful references to combat these relevant issues in near future.