I would imagine then that this style of writing (as it applies to drug articles) consist solely of finding the facts, rewriting them in your own words while still preserving the original content, present them in some kind of logical order, (devoid of context or comment) and let the reader discern the meaning or relevance of the facts presented without any kind of guidance from the author.  So rather than attempting to write a cohesive narrative, thereby providing context, you simply present a litany of related facts, (both pro and con) sub divided by relevant categories, with the bare minimum of prose that ties them all together.  Correct? Or am I still getting this wrong somehow?