Review
doi: 10.1038/nrn3475. Epub 2013 Apr 10.Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience
Affiliations
- PMID:23571845
- DOI: 10.1038/nrn3475
Item in Clipboard
Review
Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience
Katherine S Button et al. Nat Rev Neurosci.2013 May.
Display options
Format
Display options
Format
Erratum in
- Nat Rev Neurosci. 2013 Jun;14(6):451
Abstract
A study with low statistical power has a reduced chance of detecting a true effect, but it is less well appreciated that low power also reduces the likelihood that a statistically significant result reflects a true effect. Here, we show that the average statistical power of studies in the neurosciences is very low. The consequences of this include overestimates of effect size and low reproducibility of results. There are also ethical dimensions to this problem, as unreliable research is inefficient and wasteful. Improving reproducibility in neuroscience is a key priority and requires attention to well-established but often ignored methodological principles.
Comment in
- Misuse of power: in defence of small-scale science.Quinlan PT.Quinlan PT.Nat Rev Neurosci. 2013 Aug;14(8):585. doi: 10.1038/nrn3475-c1. Epub 2013 Jul 3.Nat Rev Neurosci. 2013.PMID:23820772No abstract available.
- Small sample size is not the real problem.Bacchetti P.Bacchetti P.Nat Rev Neurosci. 2013 Aug;14(8):585. doi: 10.1038/nrn3475-c3. Epub 2013 Jul 3.Nat Rev Neurosci. 2013.PMID:23820775No abstract available.
- Experimental power comes from powerful theories - the real problem in null hypothesis testing.Ashton JC.Ashton JC.Nat Rev Neurosci. 2013 Aug;14(8):585. doi: 10.1038/nrn3475-c2. Epub 2013 Jul 3.Nat Rev Neurosci. 2013.PMID:23820777No abstract available.
- Confidence and precision increase with high statistical power.Button KS, Ioannidis JP, Mokrysz C, Nosek BA, Flint J, Robinson ES, Munafò MR.Button KS, et al.Nat Rev Neurosci. 2013 Aug;14(8):585-6. doi: 10.1038/nrn3475-c4. Epub 2013 Jul 3.Nat Rev Neurosci. 2013.PMID:23820778No abstract available.
- Empirical evidence for low reproducibility indicates low pre-study odds.Button KS, Ioannidis JP, Mokrysz C, Nosek BA, Flint J, Robinson ES, Munafò MR.Button KS, et al.Nat Rev Neurosci. 2013 Dec;14(12):877. doi: 10.1038/nrn3475-c6. Epub 2013 Oct 23.Nat Rev Neurosci. 2013.PMID:24149186No abstract available.
- A test is not a test.Hoppe C.Hoppe C.Nat Rev Neurosci. 2013 Dec;14(12):877. doi: 10.1038/nrn3475-c5. Epub 2013 Oct 23.Nat Rev Neurosci. 2013.PMID:24149189No abstract available.
References
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical