Skip to content
CleanFigure
Tools
Flow & pathway diagrams
Alluvial Diagram Maker
Patients or participants moving between categories across stages.
PRISMA 2020 Flow Diagram
Study selection for systematic reviews, with automatic checks.
Meta-analysis
Forest Plot Generator
Pooled estimates, weights, heterogeneity and subgroups.
Coming soon
UpSet Plot Maker
Intersections of many sets, the readable alternative to large Venn diagrams.
Kaplan–Meier Curve
Survival curves with risk tables and censoring marks.
Volcano Plot
Fold change vs. significance for differential expression.
Funnel Plot
Small-study effects and publication bias in meta-analyses.
Examples
Pricing
About
Flow & pathway diagrams
Alluvial Diagram Maker
PRISMA 2020 Flow Diagram
Meta-analysis
Forest Plot Generator
Coming soon
UpSet Plot Maker
Kaplan–Meier Curve
Volcano Plot
Funnel Plot
Examples
Pricing
About
Research figure examples
Worked examples you can open in the editor and adapt: replace the data, keep the layout.
Alluvial Diagram Maker
Severe (69)
Moderate (90)
Mild (64)
Severe (25)
Severe (25)
Moderate (61)
Moderate (61)
Mild (80)
Mild (80)
Dropped out (21)
Dropped out (21)
Remission (36)
Remission (36)
Severe (25)
Moderate (42)
Mild (69)
Remission (66)
Dropped out (21)
Baseline
Month 6
Month 12
Clinical research
Disease severity over 12 months
Negative (31.6%)
Neutral (38.4%)
Positive (29.9%)
Negative (16.4%)
Negative (16.4%)
Neutral (35.0%)
Neutral (35.0%)
Positive (48.6%)
Positive (48.6%)
Negative (16.4%)
Neutral (32.2%)
Positive (51.4%)
Before
After
Follow-up
Survey & social science
Attitude change before and after an intervention
STEM (260)
Health (135)
Business (185)
Humanities (115)
Industry (335)
Industry (335)
Academia (100)
Academia (100)
Further study (125)
Further study (125)
Public sector (135)
Public sector (135)
Industry (425)
Academia (130)
Public sector (140)
Field of study
First job
After 5 years
Education
Graduate career pathways
Forest (533)
Cropland (354.5)
Grassland (144.3)
Urban (58)
Water (71.2)
Forest (470.6)
Forest (470.6)
Cropland (419.9)
Cropland (419.9)
Grassland (118.4)
Grassland (118.4)
Urban (80.9)
Urban (80.9)
Water (71.2)
Water (71.2)
Forest (436.9)
Cropland (428.8)
Urban (127.7)
Grassland (96.4)
Water (71.2)
2000
2010
2020
Ecology & geography
Land-cover change 2000–2020
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
T cell
T cell
B cell
B cell
Monocyte
Monocyte
NK cell
NK cell
Dendritic cell
Dendritic cell
Unassigned
Unassigned
T cell
NK cell
B cell
Monocyte
Dendritic cell
Platelet
Unassigned
Cluster
Marker-based
Reference-based
Genomics
Comparing single-cell annotation methods
Current (23)
Former (12)
Never (15)
Current (14)
Current (14)
Former (21)
Former (21)
Never (15)
Never (15)
Current (17)
Former (18)
Never (15)
Baseline
Year 1
Year 2
Epidemiology
Participant-level data without counts
PRISMA 2020 Flow Diagram Generator
Identification of studies via databases and registers
Records identified from:
Databases (n = 3,203)
MEDLINE (n = 1,204)
Embase (n = 1,587)
CENTRAL (n = 412)
Registers (n = 96)
ClinicalTrials.gov (n = 96)
Records removed before screening:
Duplicate records removed (n = 1,021)
Records screened (n = 2,278)
Records excluded (n = 2,034)
Reports sought for retrieval (n = 244)
Reports not retrieved (n = 6)
Reports assessed for eligibility (n = 238)
Reports excluded:
Wrong population (n = 78)
Wrong intervention (n = 51)
Wrong study design (n = 64)
No relevant outcomes (n = 21)
Studies included in review (n = 21)
Reports of included studies (n = 24)
From: Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71.
For more information, visit: http://www.prisma-statement.org/
Identification
Screening
Included
Systematic reviews
New systematic review
Identification of studies via databases and registers
Identification of studies via other methods
Records identified from:
Databases (n = 2,662)
PubMed (n = 842)
Scopus (n = 1,130)
Web of Science
(n = 690)
Records removed before
screening:
Duplicate records
removed (n = 905)
Records marked as
ineligible by automation
tools (n = 120)
Records screened
(n = 1,637)
Records excluded
(n = 1,511)
Reports sought for
retrieval (n = 126)
Reports not retrieved
(n = 3)
Reports assessed for
eligibility (n = 123)
Reports excluded:
Not primary research
(n = 49)
Wrong outcome (n = 37)
Full text not in English
(n = 11)
Studies included in review
(n = 33)
Reports of included
studies (n = 38)
Records identified from:
Websites (n = 14)
Organisations (n = 6)
Citation searching
(n = 27)
Reports sought for
retrieval (n = 47)
Reports not retrieved
(n = 2)
Reports assessed for
eligibility (n = 45)
Reports excluded:
Wrong outcome (n = 21)
Duplicate data (n = 12)
From: Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71.
For more information, visit: http://www.prisma-statement.org/
Identification
Screening
Included
Systematic reviews
Databases plus other methods
Previous studies
Identification of studies via databases and registers
Records identified from:
Databases (n = 1,097)
MEDLINE (n = 486)
Embase (n = 611)
Registers (n = 38)
WHO ICTRP (n = 38)
Records removed before screening:
Duplicate records removed (n = 402)
Records screened (n = 733)
Records excluded (n = 655)
Reports sought for retrieval (n = 78)
Reports not retrieved (n = 1)
Reports assessed for eligibility
(n = 77)
Reports excluded:
Wrong comparator (n = 25)
Wrong study design (n = 33)
Conference abstract only (n = 8)
New studies included in review (n = 7)
Reports of new included studies
(n = 11)
Studies included in previous
version of review (n = 18)
Reports of studies included in
previous version of review
(n = 22)
Total studies included in review
(n = 25)
Reports of total included studies
(n = 33)
From: Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71.
For more information, visit: http://www.prisma-statement.org/
Identification
Screening
Included
Systematic reviews
Updated systematic review
Forest Plot Generator
Vaccinated
Not vaccinated
Study
Events
Total
Events
Total
Weight
RR [95% CI]
Aronson 1948
4
123
11
139
5.0%
0.41 [0.13, 1.26]
Ferguson & Simes 1949
6
306
29
303
6.3%
0.20 [0.09, 0.49]
Rosenthal 1960
3
231
11
220
4.4%
0.26 [0.07, 0.92]
Hart & Sutherland 1977
62
13,598
248
12,867
9.7%
0.24 [0.18, 0.31]
Frimodt-Moller 1973
33
5,069
47
5,808
8.9%
0.80 [0.52, 1.25]
Stein & Aronson 1953
180
1,541
372
1,451
10.1%
0.46 [0.39, 0.54]
Vandiviere 1973
8
2,545
10
629
6.0%
0.20 [0.08, 0.50]
TPT Madras 1980
505
88,391
499
88,391
10.2%
1.01 [0.89, 1.14]
Coetzee & Berjak 1968
29
7,499
45
7,277
8.7%
0.63 [0.39, 1.00]
Rosenthal 1961
17
1,716
65
1,665
8.4%
0.25 [0.15, 0.43]
Comstock 1974
186
50,634
141
27,338
9.9%
0.71 [0.57, 0.89]
Comstock & Webster 1969
5
2,498
3
2,341
3.8%
1.56 [0.37, 6.53]
Comstock 1976
27
16,913
29
17,854
8.4%
0.98 [0.58, 1.66]
Total (95% CI)
1,065
191,064
1,510
166,283
100.0%
0.49 [0.34, 0.70]
0.05
0.2
1
5
20
Favours vaccine
Favours control
Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.31; Chi² = 152.23, df = 12 (P < 0.001); I² = 92%
Test for overall effect: Z = 4.00 (P < 0.001)
Meta-analysis · binary outcome
BCG vaccine trials (risk ratio, random effects)
Study
Weight
HR [95% CI]
Short follow-up
Study A 2015
7.9%
0.82 [0.61, 1.10]
Study B 2016
8.0%
0.74 [0.55, 0.99]
Study C 2018
9.8%
0.91 [0.70, 1.18]
Study D 2019
5.3%
0.68 [0.47, 0.98]
Subtotal (95% CI)
31.0%
0.80 [0.69, 0.93]
Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.00;
Chi² = 1.98, df = 3 (P = 0.576); I² = 0%
Test for overall effect: Z = 2.92 (P = 0.004)
Long follow-up
Study E 2012
24.2%
0.88 [0.76, 1.02]
Study F 2014
17.8%
0.79 [0.66, 0.95]
Study G 2017
12.0%
1.02 [0.81, 1.29]
Study H 2020
15.0%
0.71 [0.58, 0.87]
Subtotal (95% CI)
69.0%
0.84 [0.73, 0.96]
Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.01;
Chi² = 6.14, df = 3 (P = 0.105); I² = 51%
Test for overall effect: Z = 2.57 (P = 0.010)
Total (95% CI)
100.0%
0.83 [0.76, 0.90]
0.2
0.5
1
2
5
Favours treatment
Favours control
Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.00; Chi² = 8.38, df = 7 (P = 0.300); I² = 16%
Test for overall effect: Z = 4.28 (P < 0.001)
Test for subgroup differences: Chi² = 0.20, df = 1 (P = 0.657); I² = 0%
Meta-analysis · effect + CI
Hazard ratios with subgroups
Exercise
Usual care
Study
Mean
SD
Total
Mean
SD
Total
Weight
SMD [95% CI]
Aerobic
Adams 2014
12.1
5.2
40
15.3
5.8
38
13.3%
-0.58 [-1.03, -0.12]
Baker 2016
10.4
6.1
55
13.0
6.4
57
18.7%
-0.41 [-0.79, -0.04]
Chen 2018
14.2
4.9
32
15.1
5.0
30
11.1%
-0.18 [-0.68, 0.32]
Diaz 2020
9.8
5.5
61
13.9
6.0
60
19.3%
-0.71 [-1.08, -0.34]
Subtotal (95% CI)
188
185
62.3%
-0.50 [-0.71, -0.29]
Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.00; Chi² = 3.13, df = 3 (P = 0.372); I² = 4%
Test for overall effect: Z = 4.63 (P < 0.001)
Resistance
Evans 2015
13.5
6.3
28
14.8
6.1
27
9.9%
-0.21 [-0.74, 0.32]
Fischer 2017
11.9
5.7
44
14.6
5.9
45
15.1%
-0.46 [-0.88, -0.04]
Garcia 2019
12.8
6.0
36
13.2
6.2
35
12.6%
-0.06 [-0.53, 0.40]
Subtotal (95% CI)
108
107
37.7%
-0.26 [-0.53, 0.01]
Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.00; Chi² = 1.59, df = 2 (P = 0.451); I² = 0%
Test for overall effect: Z = 1.92 (P = 0.055)
Total (95% CI)
296
292
100.0%
-0.41 [-0.58, -0.24]
-2
-1
0
1
2
Favours exercise
Favours usual care
Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.00; Chi² = 6.60, df = 6 (P = 0.359); I² = 9%
Test for overall effect: Z = 4.65 (P < 0.001)
Test for subgroup differences: Chi² = 1.82, df = 1 (P = 0.177); I² = 45%
Meta-analysis · continuous outcome
Standardised mean difference (Hedges’ g)