Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25490902›Full record

SynthesisBrain connectivity2015

Reproducibility of graph-theoretic brain network metrics: a systematic review.

Thomas Welton, Daniel A Kent, Dorothee P Auer, Robert A Dineen

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Brain connectivity, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

55 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Systematic validation of structural brain networks in cerebral small vessel disease.Journal of cerebral blood flow and metabolism : official journal of the International Society of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism · 2022
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

4 authors.

Thomas WeltonSir Peter Mansfield Imaging Centre, University of Nottingham , Nottingham, United Kingdom .
Daniel A Kent
Dorothee P Auer
Robert A Dineen

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This systematic review aimed to assess the reproducibility of graph-theoretic brain network metrics. Primary research studies of test-retest reliability conducted on healthy human subjects were included that quantified test-retest reliability using either the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) or the coefficient of variance. The MEDLINE, Web of Knowledge, Google Scholar, and OpenGrey databases were searched up to February 2014. Risk of bias was assessed with 10 criteria weighted toward methodological quality. Twenty-three studies were included in the review (n=499 subjects) and evaluated for various characteristics, including sample size (5-45), retest interval (<1 h to >1 year), acquisition method, and test-retest reliability scores. For at least one metric, ICCs reached the fair range (ICC 0.40-0.59) in one study, the good range (ICC 0.60-0.74) in five studies, and the excellent range (ICC>0.74) in 16 studies. Heterogeneity of methods prevented further quantitative analysis. Reproducibility was good overall. For the metrics having three or more ICCs reported for both functional and structural networks, six of seven were higher in structural networks, indicating that structural networks may be more reliable over time. The authors were also able to highlight and discuss a number of methodological factors affecting reproducibility.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsBrainBrain MappingHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingModels, TheoreticalNerve Netconnectomegraph theorynetworkreliabilityreproducibilitysystematic reviewtest-retest

Identifiers

PMID25490902
PMCPMC4432917

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.