Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Thank you for your comment regarding the use of the box and whisker
plot in our recent short report. We totally agree that the data are
better displayed by estimates and 95% confidence intervals to complement
the analysis, and were originally submitted in this format. However, it
was an BMJ editorial decision that the distribution of the deprivation
scores should be shown using a box and whisker plot.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests:
No competing interests
07 May 2004
Alexandra G Smith
research fellow
Nicola Fear, Graham Law, Eve Roman
Epidemiology & Genetics Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, YO10 5DD
We welcome the use of a box-whisker plot in this paper as we believe
they are an under-utilised method of displaying data(1). However a figure
should either describe data or complement the analysis. The authors are
using it to do the latter and in this case a box-whisker is inappropriate.
This is immediately apparent because the analysis is of means and yet a
conventional box-whisker plot displays medians (the authors state the
figure displays means). The figure gives the impression that the groups
are actually quite similar, and yet the text conveys the fact that there
are significant differences between their means (but fails to give
estimates or confidence intervals). We think estimates and 95% confidence
intervals would have been a better choice of displaying data here.
(1) Swinscow TDV and Campbell MJ. Statistics at Square One Tenth
Edition London: BMJ Books 2002. p 6-7.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests:
No competing interests
28 April 2004
Michael J Campbell
Professor of Medical Statistics
Jennifer V. Freeman
Institute of Primary Care, ScHARR, University of Sheffield S5 7AU
Re: Appropriate use of a box-whisker plot
Thank you for your comment regarding the use of the box and whisker
plot in our recent short report. We totally agree that the data are
better displayed by estimates and 95% confidence intervals to complement
the analysis, and were originally submitted in this format. However, it
was an BMJ editorial decision that the distribution of the deprivation
scores should be shown using a box and whisker plot.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests