Skip to main content
. 2018 Apr 4;16(4):e2005282. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2005282

Fig 1. Results of the literature review.

Fig 1

Nearly half of the studies (46%, 95% CI = 38%–53%) confused pseudoreplication for genuine replication while 32% (95% CI = 26% to 39%) did not provide enough information to determine if the sample size was correct (A). Consistent with previous research, randomisation, blinding, and the sample size was not always reported (B). Error bars are 95% CI.