The DOI matches its Crossref record; 18 of the 18 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Beyond Bar and Line Graphs: Time for a New Data Presentation Paradigm
Open accessAbstract
Figures in scientific publications are critically important because they often show the data supporting key findings. Our systematic review of research articles published in top physiology journals (n = 703) suggests that, as scientists, we urgently need to change our practices for presenting continuous data in small sample size studies. Papers rarely included scatterplots, box plots, and histograms that allow readers to critically evaluate continuous data. Most papers presented continuous data in bar and line graphs. This is problematic, as many different data distributions can lead to the same bar or line graph. The full data may suggest different conclusions from the summary statistics. We recommend training investigators in data presentation, encouraging a more complete presentation of data, and changing journal editorial policies. Investigators can quickly make univariate scatterplots for small sample size studies using our Excel templates.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Scientific method: Statistical errors
Nuzzo, R. (2014) · Nature · doi:10.1038/506150a · Cited by 1,536
The unicorn, the normal curve, and other improbable creatures.
Micceri, T. (1989) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037//0033-2909.105.1.156 · Cited by 1,485
Guidelines for reporting statistics in journals published by the American Physiological Society
Curran-Everett, D., & Benos, D. J. (2004) · American Journal of Physiology-Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology · doi:10.1152/ajpregu.00346.2004 · Cited by 335
Baker, D., Lidster, K., Sottomayor, A., & Amor, S. (2014) · PLoS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001756 · Cited by 305
To test or not to test: Preliminary assessment of normality when comparing two independent samples
Rochon, J., Gondan, M., & Kieser, M. (2012) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-12-81 · Cited by 296
Increasing Physicians’ Awareness of the Impact of Statistics on Research Outcomes
Bridge, P. D., & Sawilowsky, S. S. (1999) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(98)00168-1 · Cited by 267
The Seven Deadly Sins of Statistical Analysis
Kuzon, W. M., Urbanchek, M. G., & McCabe, S. (1996) · Annals of Plastic Surgery · doi:10.1097/00000637-199609000-00006 · Cited by 212
Re: The Seven Deadly Sins of Statistical Analysis
Kuzon, W. M., Urbanchek, M., & McCabe, S. (1997) · Annals of Plastic Surgery · doi:10.1097/00000637-199701000-00026 · Cited by 179
Clinical and Translational Science Awards
Obrams, G. I., del Junco, D. J., & Fox, E. E. (2009) · Annals of Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.annepidem.2009.07.041 · Cited by 114
The Content of Medical Journal Instructions for Authors
Schriger, D. L., Arora, S., & Altman, D. G. (2006) · Annals of Emergency Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2006.03.028 · Cited by 73
Guidelines for reporting statistics in journals published by the American Physiological Society
Curran‐Everett, D., & Benos, D. J. (2004) · Physiological Genomics · doi:10.1152/physiolgenomics.00155.2004 · Cited by 70
Graphical literacy: The quality of graphs in a large-circulation journal
Cooper, R. J., Schriger, D. L., & Close, R. J. H. (2002) · Annals of Emergency Medicine · doi:10.1067/mem.2002.127327 · Cited by 68
Lane, D. M., & Sándor, A. (2009) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/a0016620 · Cited by 56
Schriger, D. L., Sinha, R., Schroter, S., Liu, P. Y., & Altman, D. G. (2006) · Annals of Emergency Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2006.06.017 · Cited by 55
Open Science and Reporting Animal Studies: Who's Accountable?
Eisen, J. A., Ganley, E., & MacCallum, C. (2014) · PLoS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001757 · Cited by 26
Oster, R. A., Lindsell, C. J., Welty, L. J., Mazumdar, M., Thurston, S. W., Rahbar, M. H., Carter, R. E., Pollock, B. H., Cucchiara, A. J., Kopras, E. J., et al. (2014) · Clinical and Translational Science · doi:10.1111/cts.12204 · Cited by 20
Changing expectations: Do journals drive methodological changes? Should they?
Erb, H. N. (2010) · Preventive Veterinary Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.prevetmed.2010.09.011 · Cited by 19
Describing and estimating: use and abuse of standard deviations and standard errors.
Davies, H. T. O. (1998) · PubMed · Cited by 10
Cited by
Zhao, Z., Chen, X., Dowbaj, A. M., Sljukic, A., Bratlie, K., Lin, L., Fong, E. L. S., Balachander, G. M., Chen, Z., Soragni, A., et al. (2022) · Nature Reviews Methods Primers · doi:10.1038/s43586-022-00174-y · Cited by 1,082
SuperPlots: Communicating reproducibility and variability in cell biology
Lord, S. J., Velle, K. B., Mullins, R. D., & Fritz-Laylin, L. K. (2020) · Journal of Cell Biology · doi:10.1083/jcb.202001064 · Cited by 718
Understanding the dominant controls on litter decomposition
Bradford, M. A., Berg, B., Maynard, D. S., Wieder, W. R., & Wood, S. A. (2016) · Journal of Ecology · doi:10.1111/1365-2745.12507 · Cited by 669
PlotsOfData—A web app for visualizing data together with their summaries
Postma, M., & Goedhart, J. (2019) · PLOS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3000202 · Cited by 553
Raincloud plots: a multi-platform tool for robust data visualization
Allen, M., Poggiali, D., Whitaker, K., Marshall, T. R., van Langen, J., & Kievit, R. A. (2021) · Wellcome Open Research · doi:10.12688/wellcomeopenres.15191.2 · Cited by 498
Metadata
- Authors
- Weissgerber, T. L., Milic, N. M., Winham, S. J., & Garovic, V. D.
- Venue
- PLOS Biology
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2015-04-22
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- e1002128
- ISSN
- 1544-9173 (ISSN-L)
- 1545-7885
- OpenAlex
- W2039272248
- Cited by
- 710
- References
- 18
- FWCI
- 54.01
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
