Graphics and statistics for cardiology: designing effective tables for presentation and publication

Boers, Maarten

doi:10.1136/heartjnl-2017-311581

Cited by 37 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For Annals of Rheumatic Diseases ( ARD ) and other journals, I have been working over the years to improve quality through better guidance, including brief tutorial videos 4 5. Recently, I published an article on effective table design in Heart , like ARD a journal in the ‘BMJ family’6; this is a companion article that focuses on graphs. Both articles expand on the guidelines for authors 4.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Designing effective graphs to get your message across

Boers

2018

Ann Rheum Dis

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research is of little use if its results are not effectively communicated. Data visualised in graphs (and tables) are key components in any scientific report, but their design leaves much to be desired. This viewpoint focuses on graph design, following two general principles: clear vision and clear understanding. Clear vision is achieved by maximising the signal to noise ratio. In a graph, the signal is the data in the form of symbols, lines or other graphic elements, and the noise is the support structure necessary to interpret the data. Clear understanding is achieved when the story in the data is told effectively, through organisation of the data and use of text. These principles are illustrated by original and improved graphs from recent publications, completed by tutorial material online (appendices, web pages and film clips). The popular matrix form (multiple graphs in one frame) is discussed as a special case. Differences between publication (including the proofing stage) and presentation are outlined. Suggestions are made for better peer review and processing of graphs in the publication stage.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Designing effective graphs to get your message across

Boers

2018

Ann Rheum Dis

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the meeting we discussed proposed modifications to the PRISMA 2009 checklist items and explanation and elaboration, and the addition of new items. We also discussed modifications to the PRISMA 2009 flow diagram as suggested by other researchers (30)(31)(32)(33). We concluded the meeting with a discussion about dissemination and implementation plans.…”

Section: Step 3 Prisma Update Meetingmentioning

confidence: 98%

Updating guidance for reporting systematic reviews: development of the PRISMA 2020 statement

Page¹,

McKenzie²,

Bossuyt³

et al. 2020

Preprint

1,002

572

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement, published in 2009, aimed to help systematic reviewers prepare a transparent report of their review. Advances in systematic review methodology and terminology over the last decade necessitated an update to the guideline. A detailed description of the updating process may provide a useful roadmap for others embarking on a similar initiative.Objectives: To (i) describe the processes used to update the PRISMA 2009 statement for reporting systematic reviews, (ii) present results of a survey conducted to inform the update, (iii) summarise decisions made at the PRISMA update meeting, and (iv) describe and justify changes made to the guideline.Methods: We reviewed 60 documents with reporting guidance for systematic reviews to generate suggested modifications to the PRISMA 2009 statement. We invited 220 systematic review methodologists and journal editors to complete a survey about the suggested modifications. The results of these projects were discussed at a 21-member in-person meeting. Following the meeting, we drafted the PRISMA 2020 statement and refined it based on feedback from co-authors and a convenience sample of 15 systematic reviewers. Results: The review of 60 documents with reporting guidance for systematic reviews resulted in a bank of 221 unique reporting items and revealed that all topics addressed by the PRISMA 2009 statement could be modified or supplemented with additional guidance. Of the 110 respondents to the survey, more than 66% recommended keeping six of the 27 PRISMA 2009 checklist items as they were and modifying 15 of the checklist items using wording suggested by us; there was no consensus on what to do with the remaining six items. Attendees at the in-person meeting supported the revised wording for several items but suggested rewording for most items to enhance clarity, and further refinements were made over six drafts of the guideline. Conclusions: The PRISMA 2020 statement consists of updated reporting guidance for systematic reviews and reflects advances over the last decade in methods to identify, select, appraise and synthesise studies. We hope that providing this detailed description of the development process will enhance the acceptance and uptake of the guideline and assist those developing and updating future reporting guidelines.

show abstract

“…The format of reporting results conforms to guidelines recently proposed by one of us. [31] We either extracted the proportion of elderly participants from the research manuscript or estimated it. In the latter case, we estimated the proportion utilizing an established method under assumption that age is distributed normally, but with truncation as trials employ upper and/or lower age limits as exclusion criteria.…”

Section: Data Synthesismentioning

confidence: 99%