Creating effective interrupted time series graphs: Review and recommendations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Interrupted Time Series (ITS) studies may be used to assess the impact of an interruption, such as an intervention or exposure. The data from such studies are particularly amenable to visual display and, when clearly depicted, can readily show the short- and long-term impact of an interruption. Further, well-constructed graphs allow data to be extracted using digitizing software, which can facilitate their inclusion in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. AIM: We provide recommendations for graphing ITS data, examine the properties of plots presented in ITS studies, and provide examples employing our recommendations. METHODS AND RESULTS: Graphing recommendations from seminal data visualization resources were adapted for use with ITS studies. The adapted recommendations cover plotting of data points, trend lines, interruptions, additional lines and general graph components. We assessed whether 217 graphs from recently published (2013-2017) ITS studies met our recommendations and found that 130 graphs (60%) had clearly distinct data points, 100 (46%) had trend lines, and 161 (74%) had a clearly defined interruption. Accurate data extraction (requiring distinct points that align with axis tick marks and labels that allow the points to be interpreted) was possible in only 72 (33%) graphs. CONCLUSION: We found that many ITS graphs did not meet our recommendations and could be improved with simple changes. Our proposed recommendations aim to achieve greater standardization and improvement in the display of ITS data, and facilitate re-use of the data in systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.166 | 0.589 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.027 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.009 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".