Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29221915›Full record

ReviewDevelopmental cognitive neuroscience2018

Structural brain development: A review of methodological approaches and best practices.

Nandita Vijayakumar, Kathryn L Mills, Aaron Alexander-Bloch, Christian K Tamnes, Sarah Whittle

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Developmental cognitive neuroscience, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 74 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
74citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

74 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Longitudinal trajectories of brain development from infancy to school age and their relationship with literacy development.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Nandita VijayakumarDepartment of Psychology, University of Oregon, Eugene, USA. Electronic address: nanditav@uoregon.edu.
Kathryn L MillsDepartment of Psychology, University of Oregon, Eugene, USA.
Aaron Alexander-BlochDepartment of Psychiatry, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
Christian K TamnesDepartment of Psychology, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Sarah WhittleMelbourne Neuropsychiatry Centre, Department of Psychiatry, The University of Melbourne and Melbourne Health, Melbourne, Australia; Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.

Funding

Clinical Neuroscience Research Training Program in PsychiatryT32MH019961 · NIMH · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI Christopher John Pittenger · 1996 to 2026
$5.9M
Schizophrenia Research FellowshipR25MH071584 · NIMH · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI Christopher John Pittenger · 2005 to 2026
$4.4M
Puberty, neural systems for social processes, and early adolescent mental health: A longitudinal neuroimaging studyR01MH107418 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF OREGON · PI PFEIFER, JENNIFER HOPE · 2015 to 2019
$3.0M
NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH107418NIMH NIH HHS R25 MH071584NIMH NIH HHS T32 MH019961
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Continued advances in neuroimaging technologies and statistical modelling capabilities have improved our knowledge of structural brain development in children and adolescents. While this has provided an increasingly nuanced understanding of brain development, the field is still plagued by inconsistent findings. This review highlights the methodological diversity in existing longitudinal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies on structural brain development during childhood and adolescence, and addresses how such variation might contribute to inconsistencies in the literature. We discuss the impact of method choices at multiple decision points across the research process, from study design and sample selection, to image processing and statistical analysis. We also highlight the extent to which different methodological considerations have been empirically examined, drawing attention to specific areas that would benefit from future investigation. Where appropriate, we recommend certain best practices that would be beneficial for the field to adopt, including greater completeness and transparency in reporting methods, in order to ultimately develop an accurate and detailed understanding of normative child and adolescent brain development.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultBrainChildChild, PreschoolFemaleHumansLongitudinal StudiesMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleNeuroimagingYoung AdultBrain developmentLongitudinal analysesMethodologyStructural MRI

Identifiers

PMID29221915
PMCPMC5963981

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.