Aims. The aim of this study was to develop and evaluate machine-learning-based computerized adaptive tests (CATs) for the Oxford Hip Score (OHS), Oxford Knee Score (OKS), Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS), and the Oxford Elbow Score (OES) and its subscales. Methods. We developed CAT algorithms for the OHS, OKS, OSS, overall OES, and each of the OES subscales, using responses to the full-length questionnaires and a machine-learning technique called regression tree learning. The algorithms were evaluated through a series of simulation studies, in which they aimed to predict respondents’ full-length questionnaire scores from only a selection of their item responses. In each case, the total number of items used by the CAT algorithm was recorded and CAT scores were compared to full-length questionnaire scores by mean, SD, score distribution plots, Pearson’s correlation coefficient, intraclass correlation (ICC), and the Bland-Altman method. Differences between CAT scores and full-length questionnaire scores were contextualized through comparison to the instruments’ minimal clinically important difference (MCID). Results. The CAT algorithms accurately estimated 12-item questionnaire scores from between four and nine items. Scores followed a very similar distribution between CAT and full-length assessments, with the mean score difference ranging from 0.03 to 0.26 out of 48 points. Pearson’s correlation coefficient and ICC were 0.98 for each 12-item scale and 0.95 or higher for the OES subscales. In over 95% of cases, a patient’s CAT score was within five points of the full-length questionnaire score for each 12-item questionnaire. Conclusion. Oxford Hip Score, Oxford Knee Score, Oxford Shoulder Score, and Oxford Elbow Score (including separate subscale scores) CATs all markedly reduce the burden of items to be completed without sacrificing score accuracy. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(10):786–794

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: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1593–1603.