Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31179173›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2019

We need to talk about reliability: making better use of test-retest studies for study design and interpretation.

Granville J Matheson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 108 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
108citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

108 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Validation and cross-cultural adaptation of an Arabic version of the chronic pain self-efficacy scale.Hong Kong physiotherapy journal : official publication of the Hong Kong Physiotherapy Association Limited = Wu li chih liao · 2025
    Article
  18. On the Unreliability of Test-Retest Reliability.Applied psychological measurement · 2025
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

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

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

1 author.

Granville J MathesonDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, Center for Psychiatry Research, Karolinska Institutet and Stockholm County Council, Stockholm, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Neuroimaging, in addition to many other fields of clinical research, is both time-consuming and expensive, and recruitable patients can be scarce. These constraints limit the possibility of large-sample experimental designs, and often lead to statistically underpowered studies. This problem is exacerbated by the use of outcome measures whose accuracy is sometimes insufficient to answer the scientific questions posed. Reliability is usually assessed in validation studies using healthy participants, however these results are often not easily applicable to clinical studies examining different populations. I present a new method and tools for using summary statistics from previously published test-retest studies to approximate the reliability of outcomes in new samples. In this way, the feasibility of a new study can be assessed during planning stages, and before collecting any new data. An R package called relfeas also accompanies this article for performing these calculations. In summary, these methods and tools will allow researchers to avoid performing costly studies which are, by virtue of their design, unlikely to yield informative conclusions.

Indexed as

Intraclass correlation coefficientNeuroimagingPositron Emission TomographyPower analysisReliabilityR packageStudy design

Identifiers

PMID31179173
PMCPMC6536112

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.