From Submission to Publication: A Retrospective Review of the Tables and Figures in a Cohort of Randomized Controlled Trials Submitted to the British Medical Journal
Presented at the 5th International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication, Chicago, IL, September 16-September 18, 2005.
Received 27 March 2006; received in revised form 30 May 2006; accepted 1 June 2006. published online 19 September 2006.
Study objective
We characterize the quantity and quality of data tables and figures in reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) submitted to the British Medical Journal (BMJ) and published in peer-reviewed journals. We investigate how the peer review process affected table and figure quality.
Methods
We reviewed 62 consecutive reports of RCTs submitted to the BMJ in 2001 that were later published in the BMJ (n=12) or elsewhere. We counted and categorized the tables and figures in both the initial submissions and published articles. Using standardized instruments and procedures, we analyzed the quality of these tables and figures and checked BMJ editorial documents to see whether changes were triggered by their review process.
Results
The numbers of tables and figures did not change markedly between submission and publication. Five percent of publications had no data tables; 56% had no data figures. Data density was low for published tables and figures. Tables seldom showed data stratified on important covariates; 88% of published tables were simple lists or were stratified on only 1 variable. Less than half the figures met their data presentation potential, with most failing to portray by-subject data and few displaying advanced features such as pairing, symbolic dimensionality, or small multiples. BMJ external peer reviewers seldom commented on tables or figures.
Conclusion
Tables and figures can convey details and complex relationships not easily described in text. Although tables are included in most submitted and published articles, they are not presented optimally; figures are used sparingly and are also of suboptimal quality. Journals should consider improving their table and figure quality in the hope that improved graphics will empower readers to scrutinize the data, thereby dissuading authors from presenting biased analyses and misrepresented conclusions.
aUniversity of California, Los Angeles Emergency Medicine Center, Los Angeles, CA
bUniversity of California, Los Angeles School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA
cCancer Research United Kingdom/National Health Services Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Oxford, United Kingdom
Address for correspondence: David L. Schriger, MD, MPH, 924 Westwood Blvd. #300, Los Angeles, CA 90024-2924; 310-794-0593, fax 310-794-0599
Supervising editor: Michael L. Callaham, MD
Author contributions: DLS and DGA conceived the study and laid out the initial design. SS obtained the research material and helped with the design. DLS designed the data forms; these were reviewed by all authors and pilot tested by RS and PYL. DLS and RS did the data abstraction for the figures study. DLS, RS, and PYL did the data abstraction for the tables study. DLS did the data analysis and drafted the article. RS drafted Appendix E4. All authors actively participated in the editing of the article and approved the final version. DLS takes responsibility for the paper as a whole.
Funding and support: Ms. Sinha was funded in part by a summer research grant from the UCLA School of Medicine Short Term Training Program.
Publication dates: Available online September 15, 2006.
ABSTRACT