Cited by 130Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesAcademic integrity and plagiarism

Potential Reporting Bias in fMRI Studies of the Brain

Open access
David, Sean P., Ware, Jennifer J., Chu, Isabella M., Loftus, Pooja D., Fusar-Poli, Paolo, Radua, Joaquim, Munafò, Marcus R., Ioannidis, John P. A.·2013·PLoS ONE

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies have reported multiple activation foci associated with a variety of conditions, stimuli or tasks. However, most of these studies used fewer than 40 participants. METHODOLOGY: After extracting data (number of subjects, condition studied, number of foci identified and threshold) from 94 brain fMRI meta-analyses (k = 1,788 unique datasets) published through December of 2011, we analyzed the correlation between individual study sample sizes and number of significant foci reported. We also performed an analysis where we evaluated each meta-analysis to test whether there was a correlation between the sample size of the meta-analysis and the number of foci that it had identified. Correlation coefficients were then combined across all meta-analyses to obtain a summary correlation coefficient with a fixed effects model and we combine correlation coefficients, using a Fisher's z transformation. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: There was no correlation between sample size and the number of foci reported in single studies (r = 0.0050) but there was a strong correlation between sample size and number of foci in meta-analyses (r = 0.62, p<0.001). Only studies with sample sizes <45 identified larger (>40) numbers of foci and claimed as many discovered foci as studies with sample sizes ≥ 45, whereas meta-analyses yielded a limited number of foci relative to the yield that would be anticipated from smaller single studies. CONCLUSIONS: These results are consistent with possible reporting biases affecting small fMRI studies and suggest the need to promote standardized large-scale evidence in this field. It may also be that small studies may be analyzed and reported in ways that may generate a larger number of claimed foci or that small fMRI studies with inconclusive, null, or not very promising results may not be published at all.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0070104

Cites

38 of 38 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
David, S. P., Ware, J. J., Chu, I. M., Loftus, P. D., Fusar-Poli, P., Radua, J., Munafò, M. R., & Ioannidis, J. P. A.
Affiliations
  • SRI International (US)
  • University of Bristol (GB)
  • Stanford Medicine (US)
Corresponding author
David, Sean P.
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2013-07-25
Volume
8
Issue
7
Pages
e70104
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1975996475
Cited by
130
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 1
FWCI
13.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • United Kingdom Clinical Research Collaboration
  • Cancer Research UK
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research
  • British Heart Foundation
  • Medical Research Council
  • Economic and Social Research Council
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (DA-027331, R21DA027331, DA-017441, R01DA017441)
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 › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
Keywords
reporting bias, functional MRI, sample size, meta-analysis, publication bias, negative results, brain activation, statistical significance thresholds
MeSH terms
Brain, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Research Design, Statistics as Topic, Databases, Bibliographic, Publication Bias, 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