suggested_dependent_pkgs <- c("dplyr", "tibble") knitr::opts_chunk$set( collapse = TRUE, comment = "#>", eval = all(vapply( suggested_dependent_pkgs, requireNamespace, logical(1), quietly = TRUE )) )
knitr::opts_chunk$set(comment = "#")
```{css, echo=FALSE} .reveal .r code { white-space: pre; }
## Introduction In this vignette, we would like to discuss the similarities and differences between `dplyr` and `rtable`. Much of the `rtables` framework focuses on tabulation/summarizing of data and then the visualization of the table. In this vignette, we focus on summarizing data using `dplyr` and contrast it to `rtables`. We won't pay attention to the table visualization/markup and just derive the cell content. Using `dplyr` to summarize data and `gt` to visualize the table is a good way if the tabulation is of a certain nature or complexity. However, there are tables such as the table created in the [`introduction`](https://insightsengineering.github.io/rtables/latest-tag/articles/introduction.html) vignette that take some effort to create with `dplyr`. Part of the effort is due to fact that when using `dplyr` the table data is stored in `data.frame`s or `tibble`s which is not the most natural way to represent a table as we will show in this vignette. If you know a more elegant way of deriving the table content with `dplyr` please let us know and we will update the vignette. ```r library(rtables) library(dplyr)
Here is the table and data used in the introduction
vignette:
n <- 400 set.seed(1) df <- tibble( arm = factor(sample(c("Arm A", "Arm B"), n, replace = TRUE), levels = c("Arm A", "Arm B")), country = factor(sample(c("CAN", "USA"), n, replace = TRUE, prob = c(.55, .45)), levels = c("CAN", "USA")), gender = factor(sample(c("Female", "Male"), n, replace = TRUE), levels = c("Female", "Male")), handed = factor(sample(c("Left", "Right"), n, prob = c(.6, .4), replace = TRUE), levels = c("Left", "Right")), age = rchisq(n, 30) + 10 ) %>% mutate( weight = 35 * rnorm(n, sd = .5) + ifelse(gender == "Female", 140, 180) ) lyt <- basic_table(show_colcounts = TRUE) %>% split_cols_by("arm") %>% split_cols_by("gender") %>% split_rows_by("country") %>% summarize_row_groups() %>% split_rows_by("handed") %>% summarize_row_groups() %>% analyze("age", afun = mean, format = "xx.x") tbl <- build_table(lyt, df) tbl
We will start by deriving the first data cell on row 3 (note, row 1 and 2 have content cells, see the introduction
vignette). Cell 3,1 contains the mean age for left handed & female Canadians in "Arm A":
mean(df$age[df$country == "CAN" & df$arm == "Arm A" & df$gender == "Female" & df$handed == "Left"])
or with dplyr
:
df %>% filter(country == "CAN", arm == "Arm A", gender == "Female", handed == "Left") %>% summarise(mean_age = mean(age))
Further, dplyr
gives us other verbs to easily get the average age of left handed Canadians for each group defined by the 4 columns:
df %>% group_by(arm, gender) %>% filter(country == "CAN", handed == "Left") %>% summarise(mean_age = mean(age))
We can further get to all the average age cell values with:
average_age <- df %>% group_by(arm, gender, country, handed) %>% summarise(mean_age = mean(age)) average_age
In rtable
syntax, we need the following code to get to the same content:
lyt <- basic_table() %>% split_cols_by("arm") %>% split_cols_by("gender") %>% split_rows_by("country") %>% split_rows_by("handed") %>% analyze("age", afun = mean, format = "xx.x") tbl <- build_table(lyt, df) tbl
As mentioned in the introduction to this vignette, please ignore the difference in arranging and formatting the data: it's possible to condense the rtable
more and it is possible to make the tibble
look more like the reference table using the gt
R package.
In terms of tabulation for this example there was arguably not much added by rtables
over dplyr
.
Unlike in rtables
the different levels of summarization are discrete computations in dplyr
which we will then need to combine
We first focus on the count and percentage information for handedness within each country (for each arm-gender pair), along with the analysis row mean values:
c_h_df <- df %>% group_by(arm, gender, country, handed) %>% summarize(mean = mean(age), c_h_count = n()) %>% ## we need the sum below to *not* be by country, so that we're dividing by the column counts ungroup(country) %>% # now the `handed` grouping has been removed, therefore we can calculate percent now: mutate(n_col = sum(c_h_count), c_h_percent = c_h_count / n_col) c_h_df
which has 16 rows (cells) like the average_age
data frame defined above. Next, we will derive the group information for countries:
c_df <- df %>% group_by(arm, gender, country) %>% summarize(c_count = n()) %>% # now the `handed` grouping has been removed, therefore we can calculate percent now: mutate(n_col = sum(c_count), c_percent = c_count / n_col) c_df
Finally, we left_join()
the two levels of summary to get a data.frame containing the full
set of values which make up the body of our table (note, however, they are not in the same order):
full_dplyr <- left_join(c_h_df, c_df) %>% ungroup()
Alternatively, we could calculate only the counts in c_h_df
, and use
mutate()
after the left_join()
to divide the counts by the n_col
values which are more naturally calculated within c_df
. This would
simplify c_h_df
's creation somewhat by not requiring the explicit
ungroup()
, but it prevents each level of summarization from being a
self-contained set of computations.
The rtables
call in contrast is:
lyt <- basic_table(show_colcounts = TRUE) %>% split_cols_by("arm") %>% split_cols_by("gender") %>% split_rows_by("country") %>% summarize_row_groups() %>% split_rows_by("handed") %>% summarize_row_groups() %>% analyze("age", afun = mean, format = "xx.x") tbl <- build_table(lyt, df) tbl
We can now spot check that the values are the same
frm_rtables_h <- cell_values( tbl, rowpath = c("country", "CAN", "handed", "Right", "@content"), colpath = c("arm", "Arm B", "gender", "Female") )[[1]] frm_rtables_h frm_dplyr_h <- full_dplyr %>% filter(country == "CAN" & handed == "Right" & arm == "Arm B" & gender == "Female") %>% select(c_h_count, c_h_percent) frm_dplyr_h frm_rtables_c <- cell_values( tbl, rowpath = c("country", "CAN", "@content"), colpath = c("arm", "Arm A", "gender", "Male") )[[1]] frm_rtables_c frm_dplyr_c <- full_dplyr %>% filter(country == "CAN" & arm == "Arm A" & gender == "Male") %>% select(c_count, c_percent) frm_dplyr_c
stopifnot(isTRUE(all.equal(frm_rtables_h, unname(unlist(frm_dplyr_h))))) stopifnot(isTRUE(all.equal(frm_rtables_c, unname(unlist(frm_dplyr_c[1, ])))))
Further, the rtable
syntax has hopefully also become a bit more straightforward to derive the cell values than with dplyr
for this particular table.
In this vignette learned that:
dplyr
and data.frame
or tibble
as data structuredplyr
keeps simple things simplertables
streamlines the construction of complex tablesWe recommend that you continue reading the clinical_trials
vignette where we create a number of more advanced tables using layouts.
Any scripts or data that you put into this service are public.
Add the following code to your website.
For more information on customizing the embed code, read Embedding Snippets.