Cited by 300Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsAcademic integrity and plagiarismPsychology Research and Bibliometrics

Excess Significance Bias in the Literature on Brain Volume Abnormalities

Ioannidis, John P. A.·2011·Archives of General Psychiatry

Abstract

CONTEXT: Many studies report volume abnormalities in diverse brain structures in patients with various mental health conditions. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether there is evidence for an excess number of statistically significant results in studies of brain volume abnormalities that suggest the presence of bias in the literature. DATA SOURCES: PubMed (articles published from January 2006 to December 2009). STUDY SELECTION: Recent meta-analyses of brain volume abnormalities in participants with various mental health conditions vs control participants with 6 or more data sets included, excluding voxel-based morphometry. DATA EXTRACTION: Standardized effect sizes were extracted in each data set, and it was noted whether the results were "positive" (P < .05) or not. For each data set in each meta-analysis, I estimated the power to detect at α = .05 an effect equal to the summary effect of the respective meta-analysis. The sum of the power estimates gives the number of expected positive data sets. The expected number of positive data sets can then be compared against the observed number. DATA SYNTHESIS: From 8 articles, 41 meta-analyses with 461 data sets were evaluated (median, 10 data sets per meta-analysis) pertaining to 7 conditions. Twenty-one of the 41 meta-analyses had found statistically significant associations, and 142 of 461 (31%) data sets had positive results. Even if the summary effect sizes of the meta-analyses were unbiased, the expected number of positive results would have been only 78.5 compared with the observed number of 142 (P < .001). CONCLUSION: There are too many studies with statistically significant results in the literature on brain volume abnormalities. This pattern suggests strong biases in the literature, with selective outcome reporting and selective analyses reporting being possible explanations.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2011.28

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The median statistical power of studies of brain volume abnormalities was 8% across 461 individual studies contributing to 41 separate meta-analyses, drawn from eight articles published between 2006 and 2009.

    “Our results indicated that the median statistical power of these studies was 8% across 461 individual studies contributing to 41 separate meta-analyses, which were drawn from eight articles that were published between 2006 and 2009.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ioannidis, J. P. A.
Affiliations
University of Ioannina (GR)
Corresponding author
Ioannidis, John P. A.
Venue
Archives of General Psychiatry
Published
2011-08-01
Volume
68
Issue
8
Pages
773
ISSN
0003-990X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2169662981
Cited by
299
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 55 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 27 · 2014: 26 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 36
FWCI
29.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Archives of General Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
Keywords
publication bias, selective outcome reporting, meta-analysis, mental illness, statistical power, standardized effect size, neuroimaging
MeSH terms
Mental Disorders, Brain, Humans, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Publication Bias

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review