Introduction : This is the analysis of two lab reports ; it analyzes the structure between the reports and says the differences between their structure and if they met the writing specifications of a lab report

A lab report or document should be well written, it should be able to pass its main idea across with evidence to support it. This evidence has to be facts, usually, they come in numbers or some type of data that should be the case. They should be facts that do not necessarily mean that the idea has to be right. The facts just must align with the argument that the technical paper/report states. A good report should be broken into parts and should aid the user in understanding the process of think and the process at which the conclusion arrived. The first part of a report is the title and introduction, then followed by the abstract, methods and materials, results and analysis then conclusion.

Tittle of a lab report is important, cause it informs the reader what it is supposed to be about and it is supposed to appeal for other readers of the report. “Cardiac Electrophysiology web lab” from the lab is not very appealing, yes it does give information on what the paper is about. However, it is really vague and does not appeal. The second report the title is “Effect of Postextubation High-Flow Nasal Cannula vs Conventional Oxygen Therapy on Reintubation in Low-Risk Patients”. That is a very good title, its not only appealing and it tells directly what the study is about .

An abstract/objective is like an expansive title. It gives the idea of the experiment in the research / practical. The abstract should be like a summary. So it should include the key parts, procedures and process of the report.An abstract should contain the motivation of the report, the answers discovered and the implication they may have. “Effect of Postextubation High-Flow Nasal Cannula vs Conventional Oxygen Therapy on Reintubation” report abstract is very detailed. It has the complete expectations of an abstract. It states the objective, which determines whether high-flow nasa cannula oxygen therapy is superior to conventional oxygen therapy. the abstract also includes the methods and direct results. On the other hand, the abstract of the

The introduction part of a lab report is a very important of a lab report . This is where you begin to expand on the objectives of the experiment .It should also include previous research in the topic of experiment . “The Cardiac Electrophysiology Web Lab” carefully introduces its topic with detail and states the problem its trying to solve . It also states the problems that have occurred previously when the experiment was tried out . It also explain how it plans to differently carry out the experiment .  On the other hand “Effect of Postextubation High-Flow Nasal Cannula vs Conventional Oxygen Therapy on Reintubation” introduces its objective with a history on it . It also highlights the improvement of the experiment and the results it yielded . It then states the problems of the previous experiment and how the current experiment plans to make changes to yield better result . Overall they both had the same approach to the introduction . By highlighting the history in previous experiment and how the new experiment was aiming to achieve better results .

cardiac electrophysiology is descent. It does have the idea of the experiment. It does include how the experiment Is carried out, the motivation of the report. However, it does not have a briefing of the result or the implication. The first abstract is definitely more useful than the second due to how expansive it is.

The materials and methods section of a lab report is very important. The reason is when a knowledgeable reader in such fields reads the report he/she knows whether the experiment was carried out in a conducive environment with the right. These conditions are necessary due to the influence on the accuracy of these factors on the result of the experiments. “Effect of Postextubation High-Flow Nasal Cannula vs Conventional Oxygen Therapy on Reintubation in Low-Risk Patients” has a very detailed method section. They include the categories in selecting the patient used in the experiment, they also include the conditions the patients are in. It’s very highly detailed due to the fact that it’s the medical field. The methods section also reveal the test that was made to the patients after the procedure. However “The Cardiac Electrophysiology Web Lab” report methods are not very detailly clear. The process is detailed but it mentions instruments and equations used. Part of the instruments was explicitly stated such as the coding language, the software used. However, the equations used were not explicitly stated and I really don’t know why . It was okay, however, it could have been more detailed with the materials and methods.

The results of a lab report should contain the data obtained from the procedure and not only that the result section should have the facts to support it. The facts could be in any form as long as it is verifiable. These facts could be numbers, graph etc. “Effect of Postextubation High-Flow Nasal Cannula vs Conventional Oxygen Therapy on Reintubation in Low-Risk Patients” Result is very expansive. The main goal was achieved. Numbers were stated, the stages at which the patients in the investigations recovered. It also carefully structured all the possible results of the patient and it displayed which of them fit into the category. It had a very nice way the information was presented. The result section also includes a secondary outcome that lists discoveries that they were not necessarily after but was noted. On the other hand “The Cardiac Electrophysiology” results were detailed. the advantage has over the first report on result is it has a lot of graphs. Graphs that are well detailed to understand the information. They are also charts to reference different input variables to compare with the output. Overall it’s a good result section.

Discussion is the part where the data is thoroughly explained and it also explains the implication of the results . “Effect of Postextubation High-Flow Nasal Cannula vs Conventional Oxygen Therapy on Reintubation in Low-Risk Patients” The discussion states that the main objective was achieved The reintubation rate in the control group receiving conventional oxygen therapy (12.2%) was similar to rates from previous reports in general critically ill populations. There is also a further information display to illustrate the numbers gotten from the results. In comparison, The Cardiac Electrophysiology Web Lab discusses deeply about the result of the experiments. The discussion explains some of the reasons they got the result. They explained the challenges and how they affect the result. It also stated where the error occurred in the passage.

A conclusion should include a summary of the main points talked in the lab reports. It should also precisely state whether the main objective of the experiment was achieved. “Effect of Postextubation High-Flow Nasal Cannula vs Conventional Oxygen Therapy on Reintubation in Low-Risk Patients ” clearly stated that its main objective was positively validated in the conclusion. While on the other hand “The Cardiac Electrophysiology Web Lab” does not even have a conclusion. However, at the end of the discussion, it writes that the main objective was not achieved and briefly stated why.

References are simply and list of citations that researchers have used throughout their papers. Individual discussion for these two papers is not necessary- both reports have properly done references. Both lab reports had references and were properly written and documented.