Diagnostic performance of initial studies against the statistical significance of the corresponding meta-analyses.

<p>Diagnostic performance of initial studies against the statistical significance of the corresponding meta-analyses.</p

Replication rate of initial studies in 8 subgroups.

<p>Replication rate of initial studies in 8 subgroups.</p

Replication rate of initial studies depending on the “true” effect and on the sample size.

<p>The replication rate was calculated for the eight subgroups as the percentage of initial studies that were consistent with meta-analyses and whose effect size inflation was ≤100% (raw data are given in Tables <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0158064#pone.0158064.t005" target="_blank">5</a> and <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0158064#pone.0158064.t006" target="_blank">6</a>). The average of the “true” effect size was the mean of the summary effect size reported by each stringent meta-analysis for each subgroup. The sample size corresponded to the median of the number of patients of all initial studies in each subgroup and was represented as the area of the circles (same scale for (A) and (B)). (A) All initial studies paired with stringent meta-analyses (n = 382). (B) Only initial studies reporting a significant effect and paired with stringent meta-analyses (n = 232). BI: brain imaging studies; C/B: cognitive/behavioral studies; PSY: psychiatric disorders; NEURO: neurological diseases; SOMA: somatic diseases.</p

Number of initial studies consistent with corresponding stringent meta-analyses.

<p>Number of initial studies consistent with corresponding stringent meta-analyses.</p

Relationship between the number of patients in initial studies and the average number of patients in subsequent studies.

<p>The average number of patients in subsequent studies was calculated by subtracting the number of patients in initial studies from the total number of patients included in each meta-analysis and by dividing it by the number of datasets minus one. The 659 averaged sample sizes of subsequent studies were sorted in eight subgroups and we calculated the median for each subgroup. These eight medians were plotted as a function of the medians of the number of patients in initial studies for each subgroups. The dashed line corresponds to equality between both median types. BI: brain imaging studies; C/B: cognitive/behavioral studies.</p

Diagnostic performance of largest studies against the statistical significance of the corresponding meta-analyses.

<p>Diagnostic performance of largest studies against the statistical significance of the corresponding meta-analyses.</p

Comparison between effect sizes reported by initial or largest studies and their corresponding meta-analyses.

<p>All effect sizes were expressed as LnOR (standardized mean differences were converted to LnOR as described in the Methods). (A) and (C) Mean of the effect sizes reported by initial studies for each pathology. (B) and (D) Mean of the effect sizes reported by largest studies for each pathology. (A) and (B) All 663 trios were considered. (C) and (D) Only the 359 initial studies reporting a significant effect and their corresponding largest studies. The dashed lines correspond to equality between the effect sizes of the initial studies or of the largest studies and the effect sizes reported by the meta-analyses. PSY: psychiatry; NEURO: neurology; SOMA: somatic diseases.</p

ROC diagram expressing the sensitivity and specificity of initial studies in agreeing with corresponding meta-analyses regarding the presence or absence of a nominally significant effect.

<p>For the three biomedical domains the diagram either considered all 663 pairs of initial studies and meta-analyses (circles) or only the 385 initial studies paired with stringent meta-analyses (triangles). Error bars represent the confidence intervals at 95%. The dashed diagonal line corresponds to no discrimination above chance. The fact that errors bars related to psychiatry cross this line suggests that the agreement between initial studies and corresponding meta-analyses might not be better than chance. PSY: psychiatry; NEURO: neurology; SOMA: somatic diseases.</p

Table 3 from Effects of exposure to bodies of different sizes on perception of and satisfaction with own body size: two randomized studies

Table of results of linear regression analyses for perception of size of others, own size, and satisfaction with size, after removing outliers (Studies 1 & 2

Table 2 from Effects of exposure to bodies of different sizes on perception of and satisfaction with own body size: two randomized studies

Table of results of linear regression analyses for perception of size of others, own size, and satisfaction with size (Studies 1 & 2