Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22521475›Full record

ReviewNeuroImage2012

Ten ironic rules for non-statistical reviewers.

Karl Friston

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in NeuroImage, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 168 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
168citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

168 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Training conquers multitasking costs by dividing task representations in the frontoparietal-subcortical system.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2015
    Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Global neural pattern similarity as a common basis for categorization and recognition memory.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2014
    Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Neural correlates of short-term memory reorganization in humans with hippocampal damage.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2013
    Trial
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Karl FristonThe Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging, Institute of Neurology, Queen Square, London WC1N 3BG, UK.

Funding

Wellcome Trust 088130
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As an expert reviewer, it is sometimes necessary to ensure a paper is rejected. This can sometimes be achieved by highlighting improper statistical practice. This technical note provides guidance on how to critique the statistical analysis of neuroimaging studies to maximise the chance that the paper will be declined. We will review a series of critiques that can be applied universally to any neuroimaging paper and consider responses to potential rebuttals that reviewers might encounter from authors or editors.

Indexed as

NeuroimagingResearch DesignPeer Review, ResearchStatistics as Topic

Identifiers

PMID22521475

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.