SynthesisScientific reports2018
Potential Reporting Bias in Neuroimaging Studies of Sex Differences.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
41 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Taichi on the brain: an activation likelihood estimated meta-analysis of functional neuroimaging data.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2024Pooled it
- Cognition, body, and mind: A three-in-one coordinate-based fMRI meta-analysis on cognitive, physical, and meditative trainings.Human brain mapping · 2023Pooled it
- Relational vs representational social cognitive processing: a coordinate-based meta-analysis of neuroimaging data.Social cognitive and affective neuroscience · 2023Pooled it
- Is the Psychopathic Brain an Artifact of Coding Bias? A Systematic Review.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Pooled it
- Empirical assessment of changing sample-characteristics in task-fMRI over two decades: An example from gustatory and food studies.Human brain mapping · 2020Pooled it
- A Systematic Review and Activation Likelihood Estimation Meta-Analysis of fMRI Studies on Sweet Taste in Humans.The Journal of nutrition · 2020Pooled it
- Harnessing the power of FAIR data to advance sex/gender insights in psychotraumatology.European journal of psychotraumatology · 2026Review
- Robust but independent sex differences in human brain function, structure, and behavior.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Sex differences in human brain dynamics assessed with edge functional connectivity.Brain imaging and behavior · 2026Article
- Evaluating the methodological quality of coordinate-based meta-analyses: the qual-CBMA checklist.Frontiers in neuroimaging · 2026Article
- Quantification of brain functional connectivity deviations in individuals: A scoping review of functional MRI studies.NeuroImage. Clinical · 2025Article
- Unresponsiveness induced by sevoflurane and propofol is associated with reduced basal forebrain cholinergic nuclei functional connectivity in humans,Neuroimage. Reports · 2024Article
- Reporting checklists in neuroimaging: promoting transparency, replicability, and reproducibility.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2024Review
- Exposure to Endocrine Disruptors in Early life and Neuroimaging Findings in Childhood and Adolescence: a Scoping Review.Current environmental health reports · 2024Article
- Functional brain networks are associated with both sex and gender in children.Science advances · 2024Article
- Impression management in sex and gender neuroscience research reporting: the MAGIC guidelines.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Sex differences in the effects of individual anxiety state on regional responses to negative emotional scenes.Biology of sex differences · 2024Article
- Remembering the null hypothesis when searching for brain sex differences.Biology of sex differences · 2024Article
- Functional brain networks are associated with both sex and gender in children.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023Article
- Best practices to promote rigor and reproducibility in the era of sex-inclusive research.eLife · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Numerous functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies have reported sex differences. To empirically evaluate for evidence of excessive significance bias in this literature, we searched for published fMRI studies of human brain to evaluate sex differences, regardless of the topic investigated, in Medline and Scopus over 10 years. We analyzed the prevalence of conclusions in favor of sex differences and the correlation between study sample sizes and number of significant foci identified. In the absence of bias, larger studies (better powered) should identify a larger number of significant foci. Across 179 papers, median sample size was n = 32 (interquartile range 23-47.5). A median of 5 foci related to sex differences were reported (interquartile range, 2-9.5). Few articles (n = 2) had titles focused on no differences or on similarities (n = 3) between sexes. Overall, 158 papers (88%) reached "positive" conclusions in their abstract and presented some foci related to sex differences. There was no statistically significant relationship between sample size and the number of foci (-0.048% increase for every 10 participants, p = 0.63). The extremely high prevalence of "positive" results and the lack of the expected relationship between sample size and the number of discovered foci reflect probable reporting bias and excess significance bias in this literature.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.