Skip to main content

Table 1 Characteristics of infographics summarising studies evaluating the effects of an intervention (n = 129 unless stated otherwise). P-values are for differences in proportions in each outcome stratified by study design

From: Reporting characteristics of journal infographics: a cross-sectional study

Characteristics Total
(n = 129)
Observational
Study (n = 64)
Randomised
trial (n = 45)
Review
(n = 20)
p-value
Population
 Population was described 105 (81) 52 (81) 38 (84) 15 (75) 0.66
 Description of population allows the infographic to be read independently 34 (26) 16 (25) 15 (33) 3 (15) 0.28
Intervention
 Interventions were described 124 (96) 60 (94) 45 (100) 19 (95) 0.24
 Description of interventions allows the infographic to be read independently 58 (45) 29 (45) 23 (51) 6 (30) 0.28
Comparator (n = 109 had a comparator)
 Comparators were described 99 (91) 40 (91) 45 (100) 14 (70) 0.001*
 Description of comparators allows the infographic to be read independently 55 (50) 20 (45) 28 (62) 7 (35) 0.09
Outcomes
 Outcomes were described 121 (94) 61 (95) 45 (100) 15 (75)  < 0.001*
 Description of outcomes allows the infographic to be read independently 71 (55) 37 (58) 26 (58) 8 (40) 0.33
Benefits & harms
 Benefits were reported 109 (84) 50 (78) 43 (96) 16 (80) 0.03*
 Harms were reported (e.g., adverse events) 33 (26) 11 (17) 12 (27) 10 (50) 0.01*
Results
 Effect estimates reported 87 (67) 48 (75) 32 (71) 7 (35) 0.003*
 Measures of imprecision reported 28 (22) 11 (17) 14 (31) 3 (15) 0.16
 Between-group differences (n = 109 had a comparator) 63 (58) 27 (61) 29 (64) 7 (35) 0.07
 Effect sizes were presented in relation to known thresholds of clinical importance 5 (4) 1 (2) 2 (4) 2 (10) 0.22
 Dichotomous outcomes were clearly labelleda (n = 97 had a dichotomous outcome) 63 (65) 37 (65) 22 (79) 4 (33) 0.02*
Bias
 Risk of bias acknowledged 3 (2) 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (15)  < 0.001*
 Certainty of evidence mentioned (n = 20 reviews)b 2 (10) N/A N/A N/A N/A
Study limitations acknowledged 1 (1)     
Conclusion (n = 63 had a conclusion)
 Conclusions were presented considering risk of bias 3 (5) 1 (4) 0 (0) 2 (22) 0.02*
 Conclusion had no issues with indirectnessc 58 (92) 25 (93) 25 (93) 8 (89) 0.93
 Conclusions were based on findings from the primary outcome 54 (86) 24 (89) 23 (85) 7 (78) 0.70
Conflict of interest (n = 69 studies declared a conflict of interest)
 Infographic reports conflicts of interest 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) N/Ad
  1. aA labelled summary statistic (e.g., proportions, relative risk) or a visual representation of the data (e.g., a Cates plot) was presented
  2. bStratified analysis not presented as this item is only relevant to reviews
  3. cConclusions were based on the correct populations, interventions or outcomes
  4. dp-value could not be computed