Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28253258›Full record

ArticlePLoS biology2017

Empirical assessment of published effect sizes and power in the recent cognitive neuroscience and psychology literature.

Denes Szucs, John P A Ioannidis

Erratum issuedAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS biology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 232 papers, 16 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
232citing papers in PubMed, 16 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

232 citing papers in PubMed, 16 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Acetyl-L-carnitine for patients with hepatic encephalopathy.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019
    Pooled it
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Expectation Modulates Hedonic Experiences and Midbrain Responses to Sweet Flavor.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2026
    Article

172 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Denes SzucsDepartment of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
John P A IoannidisMeta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS) and Department of Medicine, Department of Health Research and Policy, and Department of Statistics, Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We have empirically assessed the distribution of published effect sizes and estimated power by analyzing 26,841 statistical records from 3,801 cognitive neuroscience and psychology papers published recently. The reported median effect size was D = 0.93 (interquartile range: 0.64-1.46) for nominally statistically significant results and D = 0.24 (0.11-0.42) for nonsignificant results. Median power to detect small, medium, and large effects was 0.12, 0.44, and 0.73, reflecting no improvement through the past half-century. This is so because sample sizes have remained small. Assuming similar true effect sizes in both disciplines, power was lower in cognitive neuroscience than in psychology. Journal impact factors negatively correlated with power. Assuming a realistic range of prior probabilities for null hypotheses, false report probability is likely to exceed 50% for the whole literature. In light of our findings, the recently reported low replication success in psychology is realistic, and worse performance may be expected for cognitive neuroscience.

Indexed as

Empirical ResearchCognitive NeuroscienceHumansProbabilityPsychologyPublicationsSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID28253258
PMCPMC5333800

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.