Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29545671›Full record

ArticleStatistical science : a review journal of the Institute of Mathematical Statistics

The coordinate-based meta-analysis of neuroimaging data.

Pantelis Samartsidis, Silvia Montagna, Thomas E Nichols, Timothy D Johnson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Statistical science : a review journal of the Institute of Mathematical Statistics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 14 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 14 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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 14 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. A Cortical Surface-Based Meta-Analysis of Human Reasoning.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2021
    Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

4 authors.

Pantelis SamartsidisMRC Biostatistics Unit, University Forvie Site, Robinson Way, Cambridge CB2 0SR, UK.
Silvia MontagnaSchool of Mathematics, Statistics and Actuarial Science, University of Kent, Canterbury, CT2 7FS.
Thomas E NicholsOxford Big Data Institute, Old Road Campus, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK.
Timothy D JohnsonBiostatistics Department, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA.

Funding

Bayesian Spatial Point Process Modeling of Neuroimage DataR01NS075066 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI JOHNSON, TIMOTHY D · 2012 to 2016
$1.5M
NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS075066Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Neuroimaging meta-analysis is an area of growing interest in statistics. The special characteristics of neuroimaging data render classical meta-analysis methods inapplicable and therefore new methods have been developed. We review existing methodologies, explaining the benefits and drawbacks of each. A demonstration on a real dataset of emotion studies is included. We discuss some still-open problems in the field to highlight the need for future research.

Indexed as

functional magnetic resonance imagingmeta-analysisneuroimaging

Identifiers

PMID29545671
PMCPMC5849270

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.