Nutid og datid i resultatafsnit
I engelsk videnskabelig stil er der faste konventioner for, hvilken tid der bruge i udsagnsordene i den videnskabelige artikel. Brug altid datid, når resultaterne præsenteres. Brug nutid “når teksten taler”.
Dårligt: Figure 1 showed that mortality rates fell by 10%.
Godt: Figure 1 shows that mortality rates fell by 10%.
I resultatafsnittet præsenteres resultaterne altid i datid i engelske tekster (fx The effect of the drug increased when the dose was x ml) og ikke som i dansk undertiden med en førnutid (fx The effect of the drug was shown to be increased when the dose was x ml).
Nutid bruges i tre tilfælde: 1) “Når teksten taler” fx: Figure 1 shows that mortality rates fell by 10%. 2) Når man omtaler “noget alle ved” (fx. CPR consists of chest compression and artificial ventilation). 3) Når man forklarer noget, der sker i en figur (fx As can be seen in Figure 1, the effect level rises slowly and then reaches a plateau at 4 ul), men vel og mærke kun når man beder læser følge med (dvs. bruger udtryk som fx as can be seen).
Læser bliver let i tvivl om tekstens indhold, hvis man bruger andre tider end nutid om det, der sker i teksten, og datid om det, man fandt.
Hvad kan du gøre?
Tjek udsagnsleddenes tider i dit resultatafsnit. Rapporter altid dine resultater i datid!
Øvelse
Ret evt. tiderne i udsagnsled: The course of plasma glucose follows a similar pattern in the two groups, and no clinically significant differences are seen (Figure 1). More plasma glucose measurements have been shown to be within the target range in the X cohort than in the Y cohort (p = 0.01) (Table 2), but no difference in prevalence of severe symptomatic hypoglycaemia (p = 0.10) is seen. No clinically significant weight loss is seen in either cohort (Table 2). Table 3 showed the overall effect.
Svarmulighed
The course of plasma glucose followed a similar pattern in the two groups, and no clinically significant differences were seen (Figure 1). More plasma glucose measurements were within the target range in the X cohort than in the Y cohort (p = 0.01) (Table 2), but no difference in prevalence of severe symptomatic hypoglycaemia (p = 0.10) was seen. No clinically significant weight loss was seen in either cohort (Table 2). Table 3 shows the overall effect.