Skip to main content
bioRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search
New Results

A systematic review of sample size and power in leading neuroscience journals

View ORCID ProfileAlice Carter, Kate Tilling, Marcus R Munafò
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/217596
Alice Carter
1MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
2Population Health Sciences at Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Alice Carter
  • For correspondence: alice.carter@bristol.ac.uk
Kate Tilling
1MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
2Population Health Sciences at Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Marcus R Munafò
1MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
3School of Experimental Psychology, UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

Adequate sample size is key to reproducible research findings: low statistical power can increase the probability that a statistically significant result is a false positive. Journals are increasingly adopting methods to tackle issues of reproducibility, such as by introducing reporting checklists. We conducted a systematic review comparing articles submitted to Nature Neuroscience in the 3 months prior to checklists (n=36) that were subsequently published with articles submitted to Nature Neuroscience in the 3 months immediately after checklists (n=45), along with a comparison journal Neuroscience in this same 3-month period (n=123). We found that although the proportion of studies commenting on sample sizes increased after checklists (22% vs 53%), the proportion reporting formal power calculations decreased (14% vs 9%). Using sample size calculations for 80% power and a significance level of 5%, we found little evidence that sample sizes were adequate to achieve this level of statistical power, even for large effect sizes. Our analysis suggests that reporting checklists may not improve the use and reporting of formal power calculations.

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-ND 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted November 23, 2017.
Download PDF
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about bioRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
A systematic review of sample size and power in leading neuroscience journals
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from bioRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the bioRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
A systematic review of sample size and power in leading neuroscience journals
Alice Carter, Kate Tilling, Marcus R Munafò
bioRxiv 217596; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/217596
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
A systematic review of sample size and power in leading neuroscience journals
Alice Carter, Kate Tilling, Marcus R Munafò
bioRxiv 217596; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/217596

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Scientific Communication and Education
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Animal Behavior and Cognition (2410)
  • Biochemistry (4763)
  • Bioengineering (3307)
  • Bioinformatics (14599)
  • Biophysics (6593)
  • Cancer Biology (5138)
  • Cell Biology (7387)
  • Clinical Trials (138)
  • Developmental Biology (4328)
  • Ecology (6834)
  • Epidemiology (2057)
  • Evolutionary Biology (9854)
  • Genetics (7317)
  • Genomics (9478)
  • Immunology (4515)
  • Microbiology (12602)
  • Molecular Biology (4906)
  • Neuroscience (28142)
  • Paleontology (198)
  • Pathology (799)
  • Pharmacology and Toxicology (1373)
  • Physiology (2000)
  • Plant Biology (4458)
  • Scientific Communication and Education (970)
  • Synthetic Biology (1293)
  • Systems Biology (3896)
  • Zoology (718)