You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Description of continuous data using bar graphs: a misleading approach
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical, June 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1590/0037-8682-0013-2015 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Edson Zangiacomi Martinez |
| Abstract |
With the ease provided by current computational programs, medical and scientific journals use bar graphs to describe continuous data. This manuscript discusses the inadequacy of bars graphs to present continuous data. Simulated data show that box plots and dot plots are more-feasible tools to describe continuous data. These plots are preferred to represent continuous variables since they effectively describe the range, shape, and variability of observations and clearly identify outliers. By contrast, bar graphs address only measures of central tendency. Bar graphs should be used only to describe qualitative data. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Portugal | 1 | 2% |
| Canada | 1 | 2% |
| Brazil | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 47 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 14% |
| Researcher | 7 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 6% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 7 | 14% |
| Unknown | 16 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 12% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 10% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 4% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 13 | 26% |
| Unknown | 19 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 June 2016.
All research outputs
#17,285,668
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical
#534
of 1,193 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#165,540
of 278,180 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical
#15
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,193 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.9. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 278,180 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.