Oncology

Original Paper

A Critique of the Practice of Plotting Data Obtained in vivo on an ‘Hours after Treatment’ Format

Burns E.R.

Author affiliations

University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Department of Anatomy, Little Rock, Ark., USA

Related Articles for ""

Oncology 1982;39:250–254

Log in to MyKarger to check if you already have access to this content.


Buy

  • FullText & PDF
  • Unlimited re-access via MyKarger
  • Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use
read more

CHF 38.00 *
EUR 35.00 *
USD 39.00 *

Select

KAB

Buy a Karger Article Bundle (KAB) and profit from a discount!


If you would like to redeem your KAB credit, please log in.


Save over 20% compared to the individual article price.

Learn more

Rent/Cloud

  • Rent for 48h to view
  • Buy Cloud Access for unlimited viewing via different devices
  • Synchronizing in the ReadCube Cloud
  • Printing and saving restrictions apply

Rental: USD 8.50
Cloud: USD 20.00

Select

Subscribe

  • Access to all articles of the subscribed year(s) guaranteed for 5 years
  • Unlimited re-access via Subscriber Login or MyKarger
  • Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use
read more

Subcription rates


Select
* The final prices may differ from the prices shown due to specifics of VAT rules.

Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview
Abstract of Original Paper

Published online: June 11, 2009
Issue release date: 1982

Number of Print Pages: 5
Number of Figures: 0
Number of Tables: 0

ISSN: 0030-2414 (Print)
eISSN: 1423-0232 (Online)

For additional information: https://www.karger.com/OCL

Abstract

The erroneous and misleading conclusions that result when data obtained in vivo are plotted on an ‘hours after treatment’ format when compared to a ‘time of day’ or ‘time of circadian period’ format are illustrated. The mitotic index of the corneal epithelium and the amount of DNA synthetic activity in the tip of the tongue are the examples used. Animals were kept on a light-dark cycle with light from 06.00 to 18.00 CST. Treatment with an intraperitoneal injection of 0.2 ml of saline at 05.00 compared to treatment with saline at 17.00 resulted in no effect on either variable when the data were plotted on a ‘time of day’ format, i.e., the data from the group which received saline at 05.00 and the group which received saline at 17.00 were very reproducible. However, when the same data were plotted on the ‘hours after treatment’ format, the data were 180° out of phase with each other. This resulted in many statistically significant differences between the two groups. These differences are artifactual when compared to the ‘no effect’ or ‘no perturbation’ situation seen when the data are plotted on the ‘time of day’ format.

© 1982 S. Karger AG, Basel




Related Articles:


Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview
Abstract of Original Paper

Published online: June 11, 2009
Issue release date: 1982

Number of Print Pages: 5
Number of Figures: 0
Number of Tables: 0

ISSN: 0030-2414 (Print)
eISSN: 1423-0232 (Online)

For additional information: https://www.karger.com/OCL


Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
TOP