Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28974579›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of biological chemistry2017

Data visualization, bar naked: A free tool for creating interactive graphics.

Tracey L Weissgerber, Marko Savic, Stacey J Winham, Dejana Stanisavljevic, Vesna D Garovic, Natasa M Milic

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of biological chemistry, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

46 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Gynaecological cancers and their cell lines.Journal of cellular and molecular medicine · 2021
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Tracey L WeissgerberFrom the Division of Nephrology and Hypertension and weissgerber.tracey@mayo.edu.
Marko Savicthe Department of Medical Statistics and Informatics, Medical Faculty, University of Belgrade, Belgrade 11000, Serbia.
Stacey J Winhamthe Division of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota 55905 and.
Dejana Stanisavljevicthe Department of Medical Statistics and Informatics, Medical Faculty, University of Belgrade, Belgrade 11000, Serbia.
Vesna D GarovicFrom the Division of Nephrology and Hypertension and.
Natasa M MilicFrom the Division of Nephrology and Hypertension and.

Funding

Mayo Clinic Center for Translational Science ActivitiesUL1TR000135 · NCATS · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI KHOSLA, SUNDEEP · 2012 to 2015
$41.2M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000135
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although bar graphs are designed for categorical data, they are routinely used to present continuous data in studies that have small sample sizes. This presentation is problematic, as many data distributions can lead to the same bar graph, and the actual data may suggest different conclusions from the summary statistics. To address this problem, many journals have implemented new policies that require authors to show the data distribution. This paper introduces a free, web-based tool for creating an interactive alternative to the bar graph (http://statistika.mfub.bg.ac.rs/interactive-dotplot/). This tool allows authors with no programming expertise to create customized interactive graphics, including univariate scatterplots, box plots, and violin plots, for comparing values of a continuous variable across different study groups. Individual data points may be overlaid on the graphs. Additional features facilitate visualization of subgroups or clusters of non-independent data. A second tool enables authors to create interactive graphics from data obtained with repeated independent experiments (http://statistika.mfub.bg.ac.rs/interactive-repeated-experiments-dotplot/). These tools are designed to encourage exploration and critical evaluation of the data behind the summary statistics and may be valuable for promoting transparency, reproducibility, and open science in basic biomedical research.

Indexed as

Computer GraphicsModels, StatisticalStatistical DistributionsAnimalsBiomedical ResearchCluster AnalysisElectronic Data ProcessingHumansInternetPeriodicals as TopicReproducibility of ResultsSample SizeScientific Misconductbar graphsdata visualizationinteractive graphicsopen sciencetransparency

Identifiers

PMID28974579
PMCPMC5733595

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.