Following the end of an experiment, lab reports serve as essential papers, but certain people might need a deeper grasp of their function and substance. Author Mike Markel explores the essential components of a lab report in his textbook “Technical Communication,” breaking it down into eight sections that each cover a different area of the study. These sections include the title, abstract, introduction, materials and techniques, results, discussion, conclusion, and references. We will examine and contrast Markel’s arguments in each part of a lab report titled “Laboratory findings in COVID-19 diagnosis and prognosis,” written by Atieh Pourbagheri-Sigaroodi, Davood Bashash, Fatemeh Fateh, and Hassan Abolghasemi.

 

Title:

Starting with the title, Markel’s first sentence when describing what a title should be is, “ The title should be informative enough to enable readers to decide whenever the report interests them” (Markel, 2018, Chapter 19). I believe that the writers’ title for the lab report follows Markel’s suggestions. The title is brief and understandable, making it interesting to researchers looking into viruses or gathering their own data. Overall, the writers did a great job of coming up with a title that both correctly captures the lab report’s main points and will draw readers who are curious in the diagnosis and prognosis of COVID-19.

 

Abstract:

The abstract comes after the transparent title. The abstract presents itself as the report’s primary focus. As Markel stated, “Because your abstract might be distributed more widely than your report, it should contain enough information so your readers can quickly decide whether to locate and read the whole report.” (Markel, 2018, Chapter 19). The COVID-19 lab report’s abstract part complies with Markel’s recommendations. In line with Markel’s expectations, the authors have included a thorough description of their findings that covers the goal, context, and conclusion of the study. The lab report’s major points are succinctly summarized in the abstract, making it simple for readers to comprehend the relevance and outcomes of the study.

 

Introduction:

The introduction is where the real explanation begins for those who continued reading the lab report. “Here, you place your work in the broader context of your field by describing the hypothesis or question your study attempted to address and why this question is significant” (Markel, 2018, Chapter 19). The COVID-19 lab report’s introduction, which details the pandemic’s beginning and its effects on scientific research, largely follows Markel’s recommendations. The authors also go over their emphasis on researching COVID-19 risk groupings and diagnostic abnormalities. This is consistent with Markel’s advice to explain the research’s relevance and situate it within the larger context of the field.

 

Materials and Methods:

The COVID-19 lab report does not have a materials section, but it does include a thorough explanation of the procedures used to generate the results. The approach is clearly explained in the study, showing how it fits with their research objective. This thorough explanation of the procedures used is in line with Markel’s advice to clarify the study methodologies clearly and completely. Markel says the materials and methods should “ convince your readers that your approach was appropriate for the question … you hoped to answer … describe your procedures … assume your reader to evaluate efforts” ( Markel, 2018, Chapter 19 ). The straightforward language used in the COVID-19 lab report is intended to be accessible to readers who may not be familiar with the details of COVID-19 research. Because of the writers’ clear wording, a larger audience may understand it. This strategy complies with Markel’s recommendation to convey intricate technical information simply and effectively, improving readers’ grasp of the study’s conclusions. The authors’ dedication to clear communication is demonstrated by their attempts to further knowledge of COVID-19 anomalies.

 

Results:

According to Markel, “When summarizing your data, help readers understand your findings by emphasizing major trends, magnitudes of values, associations, patterns of statistical significance, and expectations” (Markel, 2018, Chapter 19). The COVID-19 lab report on laboratory findings provides a thorough justification of the findings and conclusions from the study. One of the main conclusions is that early diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19 can be greatly aided by in vitro diagnostics. According to Markel’s advice to thoroughly describe study findings so that readers may comprehend the relevance of the findings, the report gives a complete overview of this discovery.

 

 

Discussion:

Markel’s definition for the discussion goes as “Sometimes called analysis, the discussion section is where you interpret your results: that is , you answer the question or support ( or argue against) the hypothesis you discussed in your introduction”. (Markel, 2018, Chapter 19). The lab report’s discussion fully develops the findings, demonstrating how laboratory medicine may help distinguish between severe and non-severe COVID-19 patients in addition to emphasizing the importance of in vitro diagnostics in early detection of SARS-COV-2 infection. The paper underlines the need for novel laboratory biomarkers that can precisely and affordably predict the prognosis of COVID-19 given the disease’s various clinical presentations, which range from being asymptomatic to lethal.

 

Conclusion:

In Markel’s own words he explains what should be in a lab report, stating “summarize the main points covered by your report in one or two concise paragraphs. Begin by reviewing the purpose of your research or experiment and the hypothesis (or hypotheses) you tested. Next, summarize the most important implications of you tested. Next, summarize the most important implications of your findings.” ( Markel, 2018, Chapter 19). The lab report’s authors recognized several restrictions and limitations, such as a limited sample size, discrepancies in technique, and different reference ranges, which would have weakened the validity of their conclusions. They might not have been able to offer a definitive response due to these restrictions. Despite these drawbacks, they said that, based on their review of the published scientific literature, laboratory parameters offer a lot of promise as easy, quick, and affordable COVID-19 biomarkers.

 

References:

A reference list is necessary when writing a lab report, according to Markel ( Markel, 2018, Chapter 19), and these researchers listed up to 67 resources that they used within their report. This lab report would be a reputable source based on Markel’s standards.

 

 

In conclusion, the purpose of the lab report produced by the researchers was to clarify the importance of aberrant laboratory results in the diagnosis and prognosis of Covid-19. Although the report was well-written and educational, there was no materials part, which may have been done on purpose to make it more reader friendly. The analysis underlined the possibility of laboratory measures as biomarkers for Covid-19 despite restrictions such limited sample size and differences in technique.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sources Cited

 

Pourbagheri-Sigaroodi, A., Bashash, D., Fateh, F., & Abolghasemi, H. (2020, August 14). Laboratory findings in COVID-19 diagnosis and prognosis. Clinica Chimica Acta; Elsevier BV. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cca.2020.08.019