ArticlePloS one2025
Analysis of the sample size used in clinical MRI studies.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quantitative Susceptibility Mapping of Kidney Stones: An Ex Vivo MRI Phantom Study.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2026Article
- The cross-site reproducibility of MRI morphometric phenotypes in psychiatric disorders.Nature neuroscience · 2026Article
- Abnormalities in brain white matter structural networks associated with language function of post-stroke aphasia.Brain imaging and behavior · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChoosing the sample size in clinical MRI studies is a common, important, and challenging task, complicated by the substantial variation in potential study parameters. However, considering previously used sample sizes may provide a reference point for future studies. The purpose of the study was to systematically investigate and to provide orientation for sample size selection based on information from current practices in clinical MRI studies.
methodsWe assessed 1,046 research articles published in the Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (JMRI) between 2020 and 2023. Only studies that involved patients were included. Review articles and studies using phantoms, animals, ex vivo samples, publicly available datasets, and non-imaging techniques (e.g., spectroscopy) were excluded. The included studies were categorized according to various criteria including anatomical region, field strength, contrast category (e.g., T1 mapping or diffusion-weighted imaging), retrospective vs. prospective and single vs. multicenter studies, automatic or manual segmentation, and quantitative or qualitative evaluations.
resultsThe median sample size (=number of patients) of the 734 studies included in the analysis was 74.5 (retrospective studies = 129, prospective studies = 41) and varied between the investigated categories. Sample size clusters were found in multiples of ten (e.g., 20, 30, 40), and 90.3% of the studies had less than 350 patients with 50.5% having less than 75, while 1.6% had more than 1,000 patients.
conclusionThere is wide variation in the sample sizes of studies published by JMRI between 2020 and 2023, depending on study type, content category, or evaluation method. In clinical MRI studies, balancing statistical power and minimizing patient involvement is crucial, necessitating carefully choosing the sample size.
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.