What does this research mean for the field?

UK genetic syndrome research is significantly underpowered, with a median sample size of 30 and an average statistical power of only 54% for medium effect sizes, which threatens the reliability and replicability of findings in the field. Novelty: ClaimNovelty.SYNTHESIS. Consensus alignment: ConsensusAlignment.NEUTRAL.

What question did this study set out to answer?

To evaluate statistical power, sample sizes, and reporting standards across UK research articles studying Down syndrome, Fragile X syndrome, and Williams syndrome.

August 28, 2026British Journal of Developmental PsychologyOpen Access

Statistical power in UK genetic syndrome research; evidence from studies of Down syndrome, Fragile X syndrome and Williams syndrome as model syndrome groups

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Authors

EFEmily K. FarranUniversity of Surrey SASophia AlexiouAristotle University of Thessaloniki HDHenrik DanielssonLinköping University

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Systematic review reveals inadequate statistical power in genetic syndrome research, indicating substantial risks of false-negative findings and poor replicability.

Key Points

To evaluate statistical power, sample sizes, and reporting standards across UK research articles studying Down syndrome, Fragile X syndrome, and Williams syndrome.
Screened all UK journal articles published between 2013 and 2022 on Down syndrome, Fragile X syndrome, and Williams syndrome (N = 368 eligible articles).
Calculated sample sizes and power analysis reporting across all articles, and performed post-hoc statistical power calculations on a subset of 123 cognitive studies assuming a medium effect size and alpha of 0.05.
Genetic syndrome cohorts had a median sample size of N = 30, with only 6.5% of evaluated publications reporting an a priori power analysis.
The subset of 123 cognitive research articles demonstrated an average statistical power of 54% at alpha = 0.05 for medium effect sizes, falling substantially below the conventional 80% threshold.

Cite This Study

Farran et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a91466cd15324a1df3aa0d4 https://doi.org/10.1111/bjdp.70065

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

August 28, 2026British Journal of Developmental PsychologyOpen Access

Statistical power in UK genetic syndrome research; evidence from studies of Down syndrome, Fragile X syndrome and Williams syndrome as model syndrome groups

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Authors

EFEmily K. FarranUniversity of Surrey SASophia AlexiouAristotle University of Thessaloniki HDHenrik DanielssonLinköping University

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Systematic review reveals inadequate statistical power in genetic syndrome research, indicating substantial risks of false-negative findings and poor replicability.

Key Points

To evaluate statistical power, sample sizes, and reporting standards across UK research articles studying Down syndrome, Fragile X syndrome, and Williams syndrome.
Screened all UK journal articles published between 2013 and 2022 on Down syndrome, Fragile X syndrome, and Williams syndrome (N = 368 eligible articles).
Calculated sample sizes and power analysis reporting across all articles, and performed post-hoc statistical power calculations on a subset of 123 cognitive studies assuming a medium effect size and alpha of 0.05.
Genetic syndrome cohorts had a median sample size of N = 30, with only 6.5% of evaluated publications reporting an a priori power analysis.
The subset of 123 cognitive research articles demonstrated an average statistical power of 54% at alpha = 0.05 for medium effect sizes, falling substantially below the conventional 80% threshold.

Cite This Study

Farran et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a91466cd15324a1df3aa0d4 https://doi.org/10.1111/bjdp.70065

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark