Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
Paper is misleading, like a sheep dressed in a wolf's clothing
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
EDITOR
The abstract of Elting et al's paper gave the impression that
icon displays resulted in significantly more correct decisions than did
tables (P=0.03).1 In fact, the P value of 0.03 applies
only to the comparison between icon displays and bar graphs or pie
charts. The P value for the comparison between icon displays and tables
is not significant (P=0.17 (p 1529)).
The study showed no significant difference between icon displays and
tables for time to make the decision (P=0.81) or for the quality of the
decision. In view of this, the abstract and discussion are deceptive.
| 1. |
Elting LS, Martin CG, Cantor SB, Rubenstein EB.
Influence of data display formats on physician investigators' decisions to stop clinical trials: prospective trial with repeated measures.
BMJ
1999;
318:
1527-1531 |
Authors' reply
EDITOR
The statement in the abstract regarding the superiority of the
icon display is correct, as is the P value ascribed to the comparison.
This reflects the overall comparison among the four displays, using
Cochran's Q test of the repeated measures of correct decisions. This
is reported in the abstract and the