Cited by 56Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesPsychology Research and Bibliometrics

Evidence of reporting biases in voxel-based morphometry (VBM) studies of psychiatric and neurological disorders: Reporting biases in VBM Studies of Psychiatric and Neurological Disorders

Open access
Fusar-Poli, Paolo, Radua, Joaquim, Frascarelli, Marianna, Mechelli, Andrea, Borgwardt, Stefan, Di Fabio, Fabio, Biondi, Massimo, Ioannidis, John P.A. +1 more·2014·Human Brain Mapping

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether biases may influence the findings of whole-brain structural imaging literature. METHODS: Forty-seven whole-brain voxel-based meta-analyses including voxel-based morphometry (VBM) studies in neuropsychiatric conditions were included, for a total of 324 individual VBM studies. The total sample size, the overall number of foci, and different moderators were extracted both at the level of the individual studies and at the level of the meta-analyses. RESULTS: Sample size ranged from 12 to 545 (median n = 47) per VBM study. The median number of reported foci per study was six. VBM studies with larger sample sizes reported only slightly more abnormalities than smaller studies (2% increase in the number of foci per 10-patients increase in sample size). A similar pattern was seen in several analyses according to different moderator variables with some possible modulating evidence for the statistical threshold employed, publication year and number of coauthors. Whole-brain meta-analyses (median sample size n = 534) found fewer foci (median = 3) than single studies and overall they showed no significant increase in the number of foci with increasing sample size. Meta-analyses with ≥10 VBM studies reported a median of three foci and showed a significant increase with increasing sample size, while there was no relationship between sample size and number of foci (median = 5) in meta-analyses with <10 VBM studies. CONCLUSIONS: The number of foci reported in small VBM studies and even in meta-analyses with few studies may often be inflated. This picture is consistent with reporting biases affecting small studies.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/hbm.22384

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Including original SPMs may avoid reporting biases likely to affect certain brain regions, especially smaller subcortical regions poorly represented in commonly used stereotaxic atlases.

    “may avoid reporting biases that are likely to affect certain brain regions, especially smaller subcortical regions that are poorly represented in commonly used stereotaxic atlases of the human brain.15,16”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Ashburner J (2007b): A fast diffeomorphic image registration algorithm. Neuroimage 38: 95– 113. 17761438

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fusar-Poli, P., Radua, J., Frascarelli, M., Mechelli, A., Borgwardt, S., Di Fabio, F., Biondi, M., Ioannidis, J. P. A., & David, S. P.
Affiliations
  • Department of Psychosis Studies; Institute of Psychiatry; King's College London United Kingdom
  • King's College London (GB)
  • University of Basel (CH)
  • Department of Neurology and Psychiatry; Sapienza University of Rome; Rome Italy
  • Sapienza University of Rome (IT)
  • Stanford Medicine (US)
  • SRI International (US)
Venue
Human Brain Mapping
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-10-07
Volume
35
Issue
7
Pages
3052-3065
ISSN
1065-9471 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1543699334
Cited by
56
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 6
FWCI
8.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Human Brain Mapping (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • IRIS Research product catalog (Sapienza University of Rome) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
Keywords
reporting bias, voxel-based morphometry, structural neuroimaging, mental illness, neurological disorders, sample size, publication bias, statistical thresholds, small-study effects
MeSH terms
Mental Disorders, Brain, Female, Humans, Male, Nervous System Diseases, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Bias, Databases, Factual, Sample Size

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