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. 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. 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. Among papers with data figures, 47.7% of papers used bar graphs to present continuous data. 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. We also present solutions to other common problems identified in the systematic review. 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. Last, we consider steps that investigators can take to improve figures in the scientific literature.
Background The endothelial glycocalyx is a vasoprotective barrier between the blood and endothelium. We hypothesized that glycocalyx degradation is present in preeclampsia, a pregnancy‐specific hypertensive disorder characterized by endothelial dysfunction and activation. Methods and Results We examined the sublingual glycocalyx noninvasively using sidestream dark field imaging in the third trimester among women with normotensive pregnancies (n=73), early (n=14) or late (n=29) onset preeclampsia, or gestational diabetes mellitus (n=21). We calculated the width of the glycocalyx that was permeable to red blood cells (called the perfused boundary region , a measure of glycocalyx degradation) and the percentage of vessels that were filled with red blood cells ≥50% of the time (a measure of microvascular perfusion). In addition, we measured circulating levels of glycocalyx components, including heparan sulfate proteoglycans, hyaluronic acid, and SDC1 (syndecan 1), in a subset of participants by ELISA . Repeated‐measures ANOVA was performed to adjust for vessel diameter and caffeine intake. Women with early onset preeclampsia showed higher glycocalyx degradation, indicated by a larger perfused boundary region (mean: 2.14 [95% CI, 2.05–2.20]), than the remaining groups (mean: normotensive: 1.99 [95% CI, 1.95–2.02], P =0.002; late‐onset preeclampsia: 2.01 [95% CI, 1.96–2.07], P =0.024; gestational diabetes mellitus: 1.97 [95% CI, 1.91–2.04], P =0.004). The percentage of vessels that were filled with red blood cells was significantly lower in early onset preeclampsia. These structural glycocalyx changes were accompanied by elevated plasma concentrations of the glycocalyx components, heparan sulfate proteoglycans and hyaluronic acid, in early onset preeclampsia compared with normotensive pregnancy. Conclusions Glycocalyx degradation and reduced microvascular perfusion are associated with endothelial dysfunction and activation and vascular injury in early onset preeclampsia.
Transparent reporting is essential for the critical evaluation of studies. However, the reporting of statistical methods for studies in the biomedical sciences is often limited. This systematic review examines the quality of reporting for two statistical tests, t-tests and ANOVA, for papers published in a selection of physiology journals in June 2017. Of the 328 original research articles examined, 277 (84.5%) included an ANOVA or t-test or both. However, papers in our sample were routinely missing essential information about both types of tests: 213 papers (95% of the papers that used ANOVA) did not contain the information needed to determine what type of ANOVA was performed, and 26.7% of papers did not specify what post-hoc test was performed. Most papers also omitted the information needed to verify ANOVA results. Essential information about t-tests was also missing in many papers. We conclude by discussing measures that could be taken to improve the quality of reporting.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.