Potential reporting bias in fMRI studies of the brain.
Potential reporting bias in fMRI studies of the brain.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1371/journal.pone.0070104
复制
发表时间：
2013
期刊：
影响因子：
3.7
通讯作者：
Ioannidis JP
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
David SP;Ware JJ;Chu IM;Loftus PD;Fusar-Poli P;Radua J;Munafò MR;Ioannidis JP
功能性磁共振成像（fMRI）研究已经报道了与各种条件、刺激或任务相关的多重激活灶。然而，大多数研究的参与者少于40人。从2011年12月发表的94个脑功能磁共振荟萃分析（k = 1,788个独特数据集）中提取数据（受试者数量、研究条件、识别的病灶数量和阈值）后，我们分析了个体研究样本量与报告的显著病灶数量之间的相关性。我们还进行了一项分析，对每项荟萃分析进行评估，以检验荟萃分析的样本量与其确定的病灶数量之间是否存在相关性。然后将所有元分析中的相关系数组合起来，以获得固定效应模型的汇总相关系数，我们使用Fisher的z变换组合相关系数。在单个研究中，样本量与报告的病灶数量之间没有相关性（r = 0.0050），但在荟萃分析中，样本量与病灶数量之间存在很强的相关性（r = 0.62, p<0.001）。与样本量≥45的研究相比，只有样本量<45的研究发现了更多（bbb40）的病灶，并且发现的病灶数量与样本量≥45的研究一样多，而荟萃分析产生的病灶数量相对于较小的单个研究的预期产量有限。这些结果与可能影响小型功能磁共振成像研究的报告偏差一致，并提示需要在该领域促进标准化的大规模证据。也可能是小型研究的分析和报告方式可能会产生大量声称的焦点，或者小型fMRI研究的不确定、无效或不太有希望的结果可能根本不会发表。
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. 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. 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. 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.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
4.8
作者：
Eickhoff, Simon B.;Laird, Angela R.;Grefkes, Christian;Wang, Ling E.;Zilles, Karl;Fox, Peter T.
通讯作者：
Fox, Peter T.
影响因子：
5.7
作者：
Lindquist, Martin A;Caffo, Brian;Crainiceanu, Ciprian
通讯作者：
Crainiceanu, Ciprian
影响因子：
--
作者：
Albrecht J;Kopietz R;Frasnelli J;Wiesmann M;Hummel T;Lundström JN
通讯作者：
Lundström JN
影响因子：
5.7
作者：
Brown S;Gao X;Tisdelle L;Eickhoff SB;Liotti M
通讯作者：
Liotti M
影响因子：
5.7
作者：
Brown GG;Mathalon DH;Stern H;Ford J;Mueller B;Greve DN;McCarthy G;Voyvodic J;Glover G;Diaz M;Yetter E;Ozyurt IB;Jorgensen KW;Wible CG;Turner JA;Thompson WK;Potkin SG;Function Biomedical Informatics Research Network
通讯作者：
Function Biomedical Informatics Research Network