Abstract
IntroductionComplete 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.ObjectivesWe sought to determine the quality of reporting in observational fMRI studies involving clinical participants.MethodsWe 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.ResultsA 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%).ConclusionsThis 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.
Highlights
Complete reporting assists readers in confirming the methodological rigor and validity of findings and allows replication
This study indicates that substantial improvement in the reporting of observational clinical functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies is required
Given that fMRI is increasingly applied to the study of clinical disorders (e.g., [3,4,5,6,7,8]), and considering the vulnerability of clinical participants, there is an ethical imperative for scientists to apply rigorous methodology and to provide adequate reporting
Summary
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. Given that fMRI is increasingly applied to the study of clinical disorders (e.g., [3,4,5,6,7,8]), and considering the vulnerability of clinical participants, there is an ethical imperative for scientists to apply rigorous methodology and to provide adequate reporting. Complete reporting with sufficient details permits readers to ensure the methodological rigor of a study [9], consider the validity of findings [10,11,12,13,14], and extend and replicate the findings [9,10,11,12,13,15,16,17]. Poldrack and his colleagues have proposed guidelines for reporting fMRI studies [14]. We expect that reporting in clinical fMRI studies is different from that of the overall fMRI literature
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
