Author
Listed:
- Qing Guo
- Melissa Parlar
- Wanda Truong
- Geoffrey Hall
- Lehana Thabane
- Margaret McKinnon
- Ron Goeree
- Eleanor Pullenayegum
Abstract
Introduction: Complete reporting assists readers in confirming the methodological rigor and validity of findings and allows replication. The reporting quality of observational functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies involving clinical participants is unclear. Objectives: We sought to determine the quality of reporting in observational fMRI studies involving clinical participants. Methods: We searched OVID MEDLINE for fMRI studies in six leading journals between January 2010 and December 2011.Three independent reviewers abstracted data from articles using an 83-item checklist adapted from the guidelines proposed by Poldrack et al. (Neuroimage 2008; 40: 409–14). We calculated the percentage of articles reporting each item of the checklist and the percentage of reported items per article. Results: A random sample of 100 eligible articles was included in the study. Thirty-one items were reported by fewer than 50% of the articles and 13 items were reported by fewer than 20% of the articles. The median percentage of reported items per article was 51% (ranging from 30% to 78%). Although most articles reported statistical methods for within-subject modeling (92%) and for between-subject group modeling (97%), none of the articles reported observed effect sizes for any negative finding (0%). Few articles reported justifications for fixed-effect inferences used for group modeling (3%) and temporal autocorrelations used to account for within-subject variances and correlations (18%). Other under-reported areas included whether and how the task design was optimized for efficiency (22%) and distributions of inter-trial intervals (23%). Conclusions: This study indicates that substantial improvement in the reporting of observational clinical fMRI studies is required. Poldrack et al.'s guidelines provide a means of improving overall reporting quality. Nonetheless, these guidelines are lengthy and may be at odds with strict word limits for publication; creation of a shortened-version of Poldrack's checklist that contains the most relevant items may be useful in this regard.
Suggested Citation
Qing Guo & Melissa Parlar & Wanda Truong & Geoffrey Hall & Lehana Thabane & Margaret McKinnon & Ron Goeree & Eleanor Pullenayegum, 2014.
"The Reporting of Observational Clinical Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Studies: A Systematic Review,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(4), pages 1-11, April.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pone00:0094412
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0094412
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0094412. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.