Cargando…
Potential Reporting Bias in Neuroimaging Studies of Sex Differences
Numerous functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies have reported sex differences. To empirically evaluate for evidence of excessive significance bias in this literature, we searched for published fMRI studies of human brain to evaluate sex differences, regardless of the topic investigated...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Nature Publishing Group UK
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5904173/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29666377 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-23976-1 |
_version_ | 1783315046048202752 |
---|---|
author | David, Sean P. Naudet, Florian Laude, Jennifer Radua, Joaquim Fusar-Poli, Paolo Chu, Isabella Stefanick, Marcia L. Ioannidis, John P. A. |
author_facet | David, Sean P. Naudet, Florian Laude, Jennifer Radua, Joaquim Fusar-Poli, Paolo Chu, Isabella Stefanick, Marcia L. Ioannidis, John P. A. |
author_sort | David, Sean P. |
collection | PubMed |
description | Numerous functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies have reported sex differences. To empirically evaluate for evidence of excessive significance bias in this literature, we searched for published fMRI studies of human brain to evaluate sex differences, regardless of the topic investigated, in Medline and Scopus over 10 years. We analyzed the prevalence of conclusions in favor of sex differences and the correlation between study sample sizes and number of significant foci identified. In the absence of bias, larger studies (better powered) should identify a larger number of significant foci. Across 179 papers, median sample size was n = 32 (interquartile range 23-47.5). A median of 5 foci related to sex differences were reported (interquartile range, 2-9.5). Few articles (n = 2) had titles focused on no differences or on similarities (n = 3) between sexes. Overall, 158 papers (88%) reached “positive” conclusions in their abstract and presented some foci related to sex differences. There was no statistically significant relationship between sample size and the number of foci (−0.048% increase for every 10 participants, p = 0.63). The extremely high prevalence of “positive” results and the lack of the expected relationship between sample size and the number of discovered foci reflect probable reporting bias and excess significance bias in this literature. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5904173 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | Nature Publishing Group UK |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-59041732018-04-30 Potential Reporting Bias in Neuroimaging Studies of Sex Differences David, Sean P. Naudet, Florian Laude, Jennifer Radua, Joaquim Fusar-Poli, Paolo Chu, Isabella Stefanick, Marcia L. Ioannidis, John P. A. Sci Rep Article Numerous functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies have reported sex differences. To empirically evaluate for evidence of excessive significance bias in this literature, we searched for published fMRI studies of human brain to evaluate sex differences, regardless of the topic investigated, in Medline and Scopus over 10 years. We analyzed the prevalence of conclusions in favor of sex differences and the correlation between study sample sizes and number of significant foci identified. In the absence of bias, larger studies (better powered) should identify a larger number of significant foci. Across 179 papers, median sample size was n = 32 (interquartile range 23-47.5). A median of 5 foci related to sex differences were reported (interquartile range, 2-9.5). Few articles (n = 2) had titles focused on no differences or on similarities (n = 3) between sexes. Overall, 158 papers (88%) reached “positive” conclusions in their abstract and presented some foci related to sex differences. There was no statistically significant relationship between sample size and the number of foci (−0.048% increase for every 10 participants, p = 0.63). The extremely high prevalence of “positive” results and the lack of the expected relationship between sample size and the number of discovered foci reflect probable reporting bias and excess significance bias in this literature. Nature Publishing Group UK 2018-04-17 /pmc/articles/PMC5904173/ /pubmed/29666377 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-23976-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2018 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Article David, Sean P. Naudet, Florian Laude, Jennifer Radua, Joaquim Fusar-Poli, Paolo Chu, Isabella Stefanick, Marcia L. Ioannidis, John P. A. Potential Reporting Bias in Neuroimaging Studies of Sex Differences |
title | Potential Reporting Bias in Neuroimaging Studies of Sex Differences |
title_full | Potential Reporting Bias in Neuroimaging Studies of Sex Differences |
title_fullStr | Potential Reporting Bias in Neuroimaging Studies of Sex Differences |
title_full_unstemmed | Potential Reporting Bias in Neuroimaging Studies of Sex Differences |
title_short | Potential Reporting Bias in Neuroimaging Studies of Sex Differences |
title_sort | potential reporting bias in neuroimaging studies of sex differences |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5904173/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29666377 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-23976-1 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT davidseanp potentialreportingbiasinneuroimagingstudiesofsexdifferences AT naudetflorian potentialreportingbiasinneuroimagingstudiesofsexdifferences AT laudejennifer potentialreportingbiasinneuroimagingstudiesofsexdifferences AT raduajoaquim potentialreportingbiasinneuroimagingstudiesofsexdifferences AT fusarpolipaolo potentialreportingbiasinneuroimagingstudiesofsexdifferences AT chuisabella potentialreportingbiasinneuroimagingstudiesofsexdifferences AT stefanickmarcial potentialreportingbiasinneuroimagingstudiesofsexdifferences AT ioannidisjohnpa potentialreportingbiasinneuroimagingstudiesofsexdifferences |