Plots are an elegant and effective way to represent
data. At their best they encourage the reader and promote comprehension.
A graphical representation can give a far more intuitive feel to
the pattern of results in the study than a list of numerical data,
or the result of a statistical calculation. The temptation to exaggerate differences or relationships between
variables by using broken axes, overlaid axes, or inconsistent scaling
between plots should be avoided. A plot should be self-explanatory and not complicated. It should
make good use of the available space. The axes should be scaled
appropriately and labelled with an appropriate dimension. Plots are recognised statistical methods of presenting data and
usually require specialised statistical software to create them.
The statistical analysis and methods to generate the plots are as
important as the methodology of the study itself. The software,
including dates and version numbers, as well as statistical tests
should be appropriately referenced. Following some of the guidance provided in this article will
enhance a manuscript. Cite this article:
This study was undertaken to evaluate the safety and efficacy of retrievable inferior vena cava filters in high-risk orthopaedic patients. A total of 58 patients had a retrievable inferior vena cava filter placed as an adjunct to chemical and mechanical prophylaxis, most commonly for a history of previous deep-vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism, polytrauma, or expected prolonged immobilisation. In total 56 patients (96.6%) had an uncomplicated post-operative course. Two patients (3.4%) died in the peri-operative period for unrelated reasons. Of the 56 surviving patients, 50 (89%) were available for follow-up. A total of 32 filters (64%) were removed without complication at a mean of 37.8 days (4 to 238) after placement. There were four filters (8%) which were retained because of thrombosis at the filter site, and four (8%) were retained because of incorporation of the filter into the wall of the inferior vena cava. In ten cases (20%) the retrievable filter was left in place to continue as primary prophylaxis. No patient had post-removal thromboembolic complications. A retrievable inferior vena cava filter, as an adjunct to chemical and mechanical prophylaxis, was a safe and effective means of reducing the acute risk of pulmonary embolism in this high-risk group of patients. Although most filters were removed without complications, thereby avoiding the long-term complications that have plagued permanent indwelling filters, a relatively high percentage of filters had to be left
