Sixty-one publications about evoked and event-related potentials (EP and ERP, respectively) in patients with severe Disorders of Consciousness (DoC) were found and analyzed from a quantitative point of view. Most studies are strongly underpowered, resulting in very broad confidence intervals (CI). Results of such studies cannot be correctly interpreted, because, for example, CI>1 (in terms of Cohen's d) indicate that the real effect may be very strong, very weak, or even opposite to the reported effect. Furthermore, strong negative correlations were obtained between sample size and effect size, indicating a possible publication bias. These correlations characterized not only the total data set, but also each thematically selected subset. The minimal criteria of a strong study to EP/ERP in DoC are proposed: at least 25 patients in each patient group; as reliable diagnosis as possible; the complete report of all methodological details and all details of results (including negative results); and the use of appropriate methods of data analysis. Only three of the detected 60 studies (5%) satisfy these criteria. The limitations of the current approach are also discussed.
Keywords: Confidence intervals; Disorders of consciousness; ERP; Effect size; Evoked potentials; Sample size.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.