Inset plots can be used to “zoom in” on densely populated areas of a graph or to add extra relevant data in the form of, for example, distribution plots. However, the standard Stata command for combining plots, graph combine, does not permit this type of seamless integration. Each plot within a graph combine object is allocated a grid cell that cannot be placed within another grid cell— at least not without certain (invariably unwanted) graphical complications. We present a fairly simple work-around to this issue using reproducible examples. The main idea is to plot insets along a second axis and then artificially modify the range of this axis to constrain the inset plot within a specified area of the main graph. Additional tips are included for producing more intricate, multilayered inset graphs.
Background: In their research reports, scientists are expected to discuss limitations that their studies have. Previous research showed that often, such discussion is absent. Also, many journals emphasize the importance of avoiding overstatement of claims. We wanted to see to what extent editorial handling and peer review affects self-acknowledgment of limitations and hedging of claims.Methods: Using software that automatically detects limitation-acknowledging sentences and calculates the level of hedging in sentences, we compared the submitted manuscripts and their ultimate publications of all randomized trials published in 2015 in 27 BioMed Central (BMC) journals and BMJ Open. We used mixed linear and logistic regression models, accounting for clustering of manuscript-publication pairs within journals, to quantify before-after changes in the mean numbers of limitation-acknowledging sentences, in the probability that a manuscript with zero self-acknowledged limitations ended up as a publication with at least one and in hedging scores.Results: Four hundred forty-six manuscript-publication pairs were analyzed. The median number of manuscripts per journal was 10.5 (interquartile range 6-18). The average number of distinct limitation sentences increased by 1.39 (95% CI 1.09-1.76), from 2.48 in manuscripts to 3.87 in publications. Two hundred two manuscripts (45.3%) did not mention any limitations. Sixty-three (31%, 95% CI 25-38) of these mentioned at least one after peer review. Changes in mean hedging scores were negligible.Conclusions: Our findings support the idea that editorial handling and peer review lead to more self-acknowledgment of study limitations, but not to changes in linguistic nuance.
BackgroundPatients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) often experience strength deficits both pre- and post-operatively. As these deficits may have a direct impact on functional recovery, strength assessment should be performed in this patient population. For these assessments, reliable measurements should be used. This study aimed to determine the inter- and intrarater reliability of hand-held dynamometry (HHD) in measuring isometric knee strength in patients awaiting TKA.MethodsTo determine interrater reliability, 32 patients (81.3% female) were assessed by two examiners. Patients were assessed consecutively by both examiners on the same individual test dates. To determine intrarater reliability, a subgroup (n = 13) was again assessed by the examiners within four weeks of the initial testing procedure. Maximal isometric knee flexor and extensor strength were tested using a modified Citec hand-held dynamometer. Both the affected and unaffected knee were tested. Reliability was assessed using the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC). In addition, the Standard Error of Measurement (SEM) and the Smallest Detectable Difference (SDD) were used to determine reliability.ResultsIn both the affected and unaffected knee, the inter- and intrarater reliability were good for knee flexors (ICC range 0.76-0.94) and excellent for knee extensors (ICC range 0.92-0.97). However, measurement error was high, displaying SDD ranges between 21.7% and 36.2% for interrater reliability and between 19.0% and 57.5% for intrarater reliability. Overall, measurement error was higher for the knee flexors than for the knee extensors.ConclusionsModified HHD appears to be a reliable strength measure, producing good to excellent ICC values for both inter- and intrarater reliability in a group of TKA patients. High SEM and SDD values, however, indicate high measurement error for individual measures. This study demonstrates that a modified HHD is appropriate to evaluate knee strength changes in TKA patient groups. However, it also demonstrates that modified HHD is not suitable to measure individual strength changes. The use of modified HHD is, therefore, not advised for use in a clinical setting.
MULTIFILE
