For CUD I presume the technically correct thing is to show the full range, not just the upper limit, even though is what the effect would have to reach to be certain of being a CUD. In this case CBT/GET doesn't even reach the bottom of that range, so you lose nothing by using the full range, and also avoid the risk of being accused of cherry-picking.However, another option is to use lines, as below, to indicate CUD. I could then drop both the difference and the CUD bar (if I did that, I could probably do both fatigue and function on the same graph too).
Still think you should ditch the Difference bar, if it is not significant. Then shift the CUD bar over next to the None bar, and also take out the green line and the text immediately above it. I'd take out the dashed line too, I think it is very clear from the 3 remaining bars alone that CBT/GET fell short of CUD, and doesn't need extra highlighting.
You are only trying to make two points. That CBT/GET offered no advantage over APT/SMC, and that CBT/GET did not reach CUD. That is the whole guts of this paper. Everything else is irrelevant distracting clutter.
By higher res I meant maybe 50% increase in linear dimensions, and might also help if you use a crisper font, that one is a little fuzzy, to my eyes at least.
Last edited: