Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18985131›Full record

SynthesisSocial cognitive and affective neuroscience2007

Meta-analysis of functional neuroimaging data: current and future directions.

Tor D Wager, Martin Lindquist, Lauren Kaplan

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Social cognitive and affective neuroscience, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 192 papers, 82 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
192citing papers in PubMed, 82 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

192 citing papers in PubMed, 82 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. The effects of childhood adversity: Two specific neural patterns.Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Gray Matter Alterations in Panic Disorder: A Voxel-Wise Meta-Analysis.Psychiatry and clinical psychopharmacology · 2023
    Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

132 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Tor D WagerDepartment of Psychology, Columbia University, 1190 Amsterdam Ave, New York, NY 10027, USA. tor@psych.columbia.edu
Martin Lindquist
Lauren Kaplan

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Meta-analysis is an increasingly popular and valuable tool for summarizing results across many neuroimaging studies. It can be used to establish consensus on the locations of functional regions, test hypotheses developed from patient and animal studies and develop new hypotheses on structure-function correspondence. It is particularly valuable in neuroimaging because most studies do not adequately correct for multiple comparisons; based on statistical thresholds used, we estimate that roughly 10-20% of reported activations in published studies are false positives. In this article, we briefly summarize some of the most popular meta-analytic approaches and their limitations, and we outline a revised multilevel approach with increased validity for establishing consistency across studies. We also discuss multivariate methods by which meta-analysis can be used to develop and test hypotheses about co-activity of brain regions. Finally, we argue that meta-analyses can make a uniquely valuable contribution to predicting psychological states from patterns of brain activity, and we briefly discuss some methods for making such predictions.

Indexed as

ForecastingHumansMagnetic Resonance Imaging

Identifiers

PMID18985131
PMCPMC2555451

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.