3 Success rates for requesting data from authors decline precipitously with time since publication. The data underlying published studies typically are not available 2 or reusable. 1 Figures highlight the most important findings in publications, posters, and talks. Informative figures that allow readers to critically evaluate data are essential however, a systematic review demonstrated that the figures commonly used in basic biomedical science obscure the data. Last, we consider steps that investigators can take to improve figures in the scientific literature. Resources include a list of free tools and templates that authors can use to create more informative figures and an online simulator that illustrates why summary statistics are meaningful only when there are enough data to summarize. We also present solutions to other common problems identified in the systematic review. This primer provides a detailed overview of strategies for addressing this issue by (1) outlining strategies for selecting the correct type of figure depending on the study design, sample size, and the type of variable (2) examining techniques for making effective dot plots, box plots, and violin plots and (3) illustrating how to avoid sending mixed messages by aligning the figure structure with the study design and statistical analysis. Among papers with data figures, 47.7% of papers used bar graphs to present continuous data. We conducted a systematic review of studies published in top peripheral vascular disease journals to determine what types of figures are used, and to assess the prevalence of suboptimal data visualization practices. These policies encourage authors to avoid bar graphs and use graphics that show the data distribution however, they provide little guidance on how to effectively display data. Reports highlighting the problems with the standard practice of using bar graphs to show continuous data have prompted many journals to adopt new visualization policies.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |