What question did this study set out to answer?

To evaluate longitudinal trends in sample sizes, statistical power calculations, and methodological reporting transparency across highly cited and contemporary neuroimaging studies.

July 15, 2020SHILAP Revista de lepidopterologíaOpen Access

Sample size evolution in neuroimaging research: An evaluation of highly-cited studies (1990–2012) and of latest practices (2017–2018) in high-impact journals

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

To evaluate longitudinal trends in sample sizes, statistical power calculations, and methodological reporting transparency across highly cited and contemporary neuroimaging studies.
Evaluated 1,038 highly cited structural and functional MRI papers (1,161 studies) published between 1990 and 2012.
Analyzed 270 papers (300 studies) published in high-impact neuroimaging journals during 2017 and 2018.
Extracted median participant counts, rates of pre-study statistical power calculations, and exclusion reporting across clinical and experimental cohorts.
Highly cited experimental fMRI studies had a median sample size of 12 (increasing at 0.74 participants/year), whereas studies published in 2017 and 2018 reached median sample sizes of 23 and 24, respectively.
Pre-study statistical power calculations were documented in only 3.1% (4 of 131) of papers in 2017 and 3.5% (5 of 142) in 2018, primarily limited to basic t-tests and correlations.
Participant exclusion reporting increased from 14% in highly cited historical papers to 49% among papers with original data in 2017 and 2018.

Discussion

No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.

Implication

Meta-epidemiological study reveals persistent small sample sizes and rare power calculations in neuroimaging publications, highlighting the urgent need for standardized reporting practices.

Cite This Study

Szűcs et al. (2020) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69b2f550174fca391ababc54 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117164

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Implication

Meta-epidemiological study reveals persistent small sample sizes and rare power calculations in neuroimaging publications, highlighting the urgent need for standardized reporting practices.

Sample size evolution in neuroimaging research: An evaluation of highly-cited studies (1990–2012) and of latest practices (2017–2018) in high-impact journals

Key Points

Discussion

Implication

Cite This Study

Sample size evolution in neuroimaging research: An evaluation of highly-cited studies (1990–2012) and of latest practices (2017–2018) in high-impact journals

Key Points

Discussion

Implication

Cite This Study

Also Consider

Also Consider