Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22952615›Full record

ArticlePloS one2012

Reviews of functional MRI: the ethical dimensions of methodological critique.

James Anderson, Ania Mizgalewicz, Judy Illes

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Neuroethical issues in clinical neuroscience research.Handbook of clinical neurology · 2013
    Review
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.

James AndersonNational Core for Neuroethics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Ania Mizgalewicz
Judy Illes

Funding

Advanced Neuroimaging: Ethical, Legal, and Social IssuesR01MH084282 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA · PI ILLES, JUDY · 2008 to 2011
$680k
CIHR 85117NIMH NIH HHS 9R01MH84282-06NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH084282
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Neuroimaging studies involving human subjects raise a range of ethics issues. Many of these issues are heightened in the context of neuroimaging research involving persons with mental health disorders. There has been growing interest in these issues among legal scholars, philosophers, social scientists, and as well as neuroimagers over the last decade. Less clear, however, is the extent to which members of the neuroimaging community are engaged with these issues when they undertake their research and report results. In this study, we analyze the peer-reviewed review literature involving fMRI as applied to the study of mental health disorders. Our hypothesis is that, due to the critical orientation of reviews, and the vulnerability of mental health population, the penetrance of neuroethics will be higher in the review literature in this area than it is in the primary fMRI research literature more generally. We find that while authors of reviews do focus a great deal of attention on the methodological limitations of the studies they discussed, contrary to our hypothesis, they do not frame concerns in ethical terms despite their ethical significance. We argue that an ethics lens on such discussion would increase the knowledge-value of this scholarly work.

Indexed as

Ethics, MedicalReview Literature as TopicAnxiety DisordersAttention Deficit Disorder with HyperactivityHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMental Health ServicesMeta-Analysis as TopicMood DisordersNeuroimagingResearch DesignSchizophrenia

Identifiers

PMID22952615
PMCPMC3429464

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.