  The presentation of results from Systematic Literature Reviews (SLRs) is
generally done using tables. Prior research suggests that results summarized in
tables are often difficult for readers to understand. One alternative to
improve results' comprehensibility is to use graphical representations. The aim
of this work is twofold: first, to investigate whether graph representations
result is better comprehensibility than tables when presenting SLR results;
second, to investigate whether interpretation using graphs impacts on
performance, as measured by the time consumed to analyse and understand the
data. We selected an SLR published in the literature and used two different
formats to represent its results - tables and graphs, in three different
combinations: (i) table format only; (ii) graph format only; and (iii) a
mixture of tables and graphs. We conducted an experiment that compared the
performance and capability of experts in SLR, as well as doctoral and masters
students, in analysing and understanding the results of the SLR, as presented
in one of the three different forms. We were interested in examining whether
there is difference between the performance of participants using tables and
graphs. The graphical representation of SLR data led to a reduction in the time
taken for its analysis, without any loss in data comprehensibility. For our
sample the analysis of graphical data proved to be faster than the analysis of
tabular data. However , we found no evidence of a difference in
comprehensibility whether using tables, graphical format or a combination.
Overall we argue that graphs are a suitable alternative to tables when it comes
to representing the results of an SLR.
