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 |