Postgraduate medical journal
-
Bar charts of numerical data, often known as dynamite plots, are unnecessary and misleading. Their tendency to alter the perception of mean's position through the within-the-bar bias and their lack of information on the distribution of the data are two of numerous reasons. The machine learning tool, Barzooka, can be used to rapidly screen for different graph types in journal articles.We aim to determine the proportion of original research articles using dynamite plots to visualize data, and whether there has been a change in their use over time. ⋯ Our results show that the use of dynamite plots in surgical research has decreased over time; however, use remains high. More must be done to understand this phenomenon and educate surgical researchers on data visualization practices.
-
Observational Study
Gastroesophageal reflux disease increases the risk of essential hypertension: results from the Nationwide Readmission Database and Mendelian randomization analysis.
The link between gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and essential hypertension (EH) and its causal nature remains controversial. Our study examined the connection between GERD and the risk of hypertension and assessed further whether this correlation has a causal relationship. ⋯ GERD is a causal risk factor for EH. Further research is required to probe the mechanism underlying this causal connection.
-
Junior doctors make clinical decisions regularly; therefore, they need to adequately interpret the evidence supporting these decisions. Patients can be harmed if clinical treatments are supported by biased or unreliable evidence. Systematic reviews that contain meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials are a relatively low-biased type of evidence to support clinical interventions. ⋯ In this article, doctors are informed about potential methodological and ethical issues in systematic reviews that contain a meta-analysis that are sometimes not easily identified or even overlooked by the current tools developed to assess their methodological quality or risk of bias. The article presents a discussion of topics related to data extraction, accuracy in reporting, reproducibility, heterogeneity, quality assessment of primary studies included in the systematic review, sponsorship, and conflict of interest. It is expected that the information reported will be useful for junior doctors when they are reading and interpreting evidence from systematic reviews containing meta-analyses of therapeutic interventions, mainly those doctors unfamiliar with methodological principles.