SynthesisPloS one2014
The reporting of observational clinical functional magnetic resonance imaging studies: a systematic review.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Empirical assessment of changing sample-characteristics in task-fMRI over two decades: An example from gustatory and food studies.Human brain mapping · 2020Pooled it
- Most Common Publication Types of Neuroimaging Literature: Papers With High Levels of Evidence Are on the Rise.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2020Pooled it
- Reproducible brain PET data analysis: easier said than done.Frontiers in neuroinformatics · 2024Article
- Improving the study of brain-behavior relationships by revisiting basic assumptions.Trends in cognitive sciences · 2023Review
- Double-dipping revisited.Nature neuroscience · 2019Article
- Readability of the 100 Most-Cited Neuroimaging Papers Assessed by Common Readability Formulae.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2018Article
- Data management and sharing in neuroimaging: Practices and perceptions of MRI researchers.PloS one · 2018Article
- An Updated Survey on Statistical Thresholding and Sample Size of fMRI Studies.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2018Article
- Scanning the horizon: towards transparent and reproducible neuroimaging research.Nature reviews. Neuroscience · 2017Review
- The reporting of studies using routinely collected health data was often insufficient.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2016Article
- Vulnerability for new episodes in recurrent major depressive disorder: protocol for the longitudinal DELTA-neuroimaging cohort study.BMJ open · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionComplete reporting assists readers in confirming the methodological rigor and validity of findings and allows replication. The reporting quality of observational functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies involving clinical participants is unclear.
objectivesWe sought to determine the quality of reporting in observational fMRI studies involving clinical participants.
methodsWe searched OVID MEDLINE for fMRI studies in six leading journals between January 2010 and December 2011.Three independent reviewers abstracted data from articles using an 83-item checklist adapted from the guidelines proposed by Poldrack et al. (Neuroimage 2008; 40: 409-14). We calculated the percentage of articles reporting each item of the checklist and the percentage of reported items per article.
resultsA random sample of 100 eligible articles was included in the study. Thirty-one items were reported by fewer than 50% of the articles and 13 items were reported by fewer than 20% of the articles. The median percentage of reported items per article was 51% (ranging from 30% to 78%). Although most articles reported statistical methods for within-subject modeling (92%) and for between-subject group modeling (97%), none of the articles reported observed effect sizes for any negative finding (0%). Few articles reported justifications for fixed-effect inferences used for group modeling (3%) and temporal autocorrelations used to account for within-subject variances and correlations (18%). Other under-reported areas included whether and how the task design was optimized for efficiency (22%) and distributions of inter-trial intervals (23%).
conclusionsThis study indicates that substantial improvement in the reporting of observational clinical fMRI studies is required. Poldrack et al.'s guidelines provide a means of improving overall reporting quality. Nonetheless, these guidelines are lengthy and may be at odds with strict word limits for publication; creation of a shortened-version of Poldrack's checklist that contains the most relevant items may be useful in this regard.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.