Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2013 Jul 25;8(7):e70104.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0070104. Print 2013.

Potential Reporting Bias in fMRI Studies of the Brain

Affiliations
Free PMC article
Meta-Analysis

Potential Reporting Bias in fMRI Studies of the Brain

Sean P David et al. PLoS One. .
Free PMC article

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a larger number of claimed foci or that small fMRI studies with inconclusive, null, or not very promising results may not be published at all.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. PRISMA Flow chart of literature search and data extraction.
Flow chart of literature search, selected meta-analyses papers, selection of sub-analyses and selection of final data sets.
Figure 2
Figure 2. Relationship Between Number of Meta-Analytic Foci, Sample Size and Number of Studies per Meta-Analysis.
2A - Scatter plot of foci (per meta-analysis) and studies per meta-analysis. 2B - scatter plot of foci (per meta-analysis) and sample size per meta-analysis.
Figure 3
Figure 3. Relationship Between Number of Foci and Sample Size per Study.
Scatter plot of foci and sample size from all data sets (N = 1778) within all meta-analyses.
Figure 4
Figure 4. Relationship Between Sample Size and Number of Clusters in Simulated fMRI Data.
Relationship between sample size and number of clusters in simulated fMRI data.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 35 articles

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Faro SH, Mohamed FB (2010) Functional MRI: Basic Principles and Clinical Applications: Springer.
    1. Poldrack RA, Mumford JA, Nichols TE (2011) Handbook of Functional MRI Data Analysis. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
    1. McGuire P, Howes OD, Stone J, Fusar-Poli P (2008) Functional neuroimaging in schizophrenia: diagnosis and drug discovery. Trends Pharmacol Sci 29: 91–98. - PubMed
    1. Turkeltaub PE, Eden GF, Jones KM, Zeffiro TA (2002) Meta-analysis of the functional neuroanatomy of single-word reading: method and validation. Neuroimage 16: 765–780. - PubMed
    1. Radua J, Mataix-Cols D (2009) Voxel-wise meta-analysis of grey matter changes in obsessive-compulsive disorder. Br J Psychiatry 195: 393–402. - PubMed

Publication types

Feedback