12 კვირა

სპორტული პრეპარატების მოხმარების უვნებლობის ანალიზი

9) კვლევის მანუსკრიპტის/ხელნაწერის (research paper) შაბლონი

ინსტრუქცია სტუდენტებისათვის

     ქვემოთ წარმოდგენილი შაბლონი განკუთვნილია მიმოხილვითი კვლევითი ნაშრომის (review paper) ხელნაწერის მოსამზადებლად, რომელშიც მიზნად ისახება სპორტული დანამატების შესახებ გავრცელებული მტკიცებების კრიტიკული განხილვა და მათი შედარება არსებული სამეცნიერო კვლევების შედეგებთან.

არსებული ამოცანებია:

• თემის შერჩევა (ნივთიერება, პრეპარატი, მეთოდი);

• შესაბამისი წყაროების შეგროვება (სამეცნიერო სტატიები, სისტემური მიმოხილვები, მეტაანალიზები);

• შეფასდეს მტკიცებულებების ხარისხი;

• შედარდეს პოპულარული/მარკეტინგული მტკიცებები და რეალური სამეცნიერო მონაცემები;

• ჩამოყალიბდეს არგუმენტირებული დასკვნა.

⚠️ მნიშვნელოვანი მოთხოვნები

• ტექსტი იწერება ინგლისურ ენაზე

• ყველა წყარო აღინიშნება კვადრატულ ფრჩხილებში ჩასმული ინდექსით — მაგალითად [1], [2], [3]

• REFERENCES სექცია ფორმატდება APA სტილის მიხედვით

შაბლონი

Title

A concise, informative title reflecting the topic, scope, and review nature of the paper.

Abstract

The abstract should provide a structured summary of the review. It must clearly state the purpose of the paper, the methodological approach to literature selection, the main findings, and the overall conclusion.

This review aims to critically evaluate the current scientific evidence regarding [topic/substance/intervention] in the context of [sport, health, physiology, or performance]. A comprehensive analysis of peer-reviewed studies published in recognized scientific databases was conducted. The findings suggest that [brief summary of evidence]. While certain claims are partially supported by scientific data, other widely promoted effects lack sufficient empirical validation. Overall, the available evidence indicates that [final conclusion].

Keywords: review, evidence-based analysis, [topic], sports science, safety, efficacy

1. Introduction

The introduction should define the background and relevance of the topic.

[Topic] has gained considerable attention in recent years, particularly within the fields of sports science, physical performance, and health optimization. It is frequently promoted as a means to enhance [performance, recovery, cognition, metabolism, etc.]. However, the scientific validity of these claims remains a subject of debate [1].

The purpose of this review is to critically analyze existing scientific literature in order to assess whether the proposed benefits of [topic] are supported by robust empirical evidence. Special attention is given to the consistency, quality, and limitations of available studies.

2. Methods (Literature Review Strategy)

This section explains how the literature was selected, even though no original experiment was conducted.

A narrative review methodology was employed. Scientific articles were identified through databases such as PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Keywords included [list keywords]. Priority was given to randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses published in peer-reviewed journals.

Studies were included based on relevance, methodological quality, and clarity of reported outcomes. Non-peer-reviewed sources were used only for contextual or illustrative purposes and were critically assessed [2].

3. Results

The results section summarizes what the literature shows, without interpretation beyond factual reporting.

The analyzed studies demonstrate heterogeneous results regarding the effects of [topic]. Several studies report statistically significant improvements in [specific outcome] under controlled conditions [3][4]. In contrast, other investigations failed to observe meaningful effects when compared with placebo or control groups [5].

Regarding safety, most studies indicate that [topic] is generally well tolerated within recommended dosage ranges, although isolated adverse effects have been reported in specific populations [6].

4. Discussion

This section provides critical interpretation and synthesis of the findings.

The variability of reported outcomes may be attributed to differences in study design, sample size, participant characteristics, and intervention protocols. While some evidence supports the potential benefits of [topic], the overall strength of evidence remains moderate.

Importantly, marketing narratives often exaggerate the magnitude and universality of effects, overlooking contextual limitations and conflicting data [7]. From an evidence-based perspective, [topic] should not be regarded as a universally effective intervention.

Further high-quality research is required to clarify dose-response relationships, long-term safety, and population-specific effects.

5. Conclusion

The conclusion must answer the core research question.

Based on the available scientific evidence, the effects of [topic] can be characterized as [mostly supported / partially supported / insufficiently supported]. While certain benefits are documented under specific conditions, many popular claims lack strong empirical backing.

Therefore, the use of [topic] should be approached with caution and grounded in evidence-based decision-making rather than promotional narratives.

References

(APA style, alphabetical order)

1. Author, A. A., & Author, B. B. (Year). Title of the article. Journal Name, Volume(Issue), pages. https://doi.org/xxxxx

2. Author, C. C. (Year). Title of review article. Journal Name, Volume(Issue), pages.

3. Author, D. D., et al. (Year). Title. Journal Name, Volume(Issue), pages.

4. Author, E. E. (Year). Title. Journal Name, Volume(Issue), pages.

5. Author, F. F. (Year). Title. Journal Name, Volume(Issue), pages.

კვლევითი ნაშრომის მაგალითი