Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31379049›Full record

ReviewHuman brain mapping2019

Practical recommendations to conduct a neuroimaging meta-analysis for neuropsychiatric disorders.

Masoud Tahmasian, Amir A Sepehry, Fateme Samea, Tina Khodadadifar, Zahra Soltaninejad, Nooshin Javaheripour, Habibolah Khazaie, Mojtaba Zarei, Simon B Eickhoff, Claudia R Eickhoff

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Human brain mapping, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 72 papers, 53 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
72citing papers in PubMed, 53 pooled it
7.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

72 citing papers in PubMed, 53 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 124 citations in OpenAlex.

  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. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

12 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

10 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.

Masoud TahmasianInstitute of Medical Science and Technology, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.ORCID 0000-0003-3999-3807
Amir A SepehryClinical and Counselling Psychology Program, Adler University, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-6055-4457
Fateme SameaInstitute of Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.
Tina KhodadadifarSchool of Cognitive Sciences, Institute for Research in Fundamental Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Zahra SoltaninejadInstitute of Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.
Nooshin JavaheripourInstitute of Medical Science and Technology, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.
Habibolah KhazaieSleep Disorders Research Center, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran.
Mojtaba ZareiInstitute of Medical Science and Technology, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.
Simon B EickhoffInstitute for Systems Neuroscience, Medical Faculty, Heinrich-Heine University Düsseldorf, Germany.
Claudia R EickhoffInstitute of Neuroscience and Medicine (INM-1, INM-7), Research Center Jülich, Jülich, Germany.
Shahid Beheshti University · IRForschungszentrum Jülich · DEInstitute for Cognitive Science Studies · IRAdler · CAInstitute for Research in Fundamental Sciences · IRKermanshah University of Medical Sciences · IR

Funding

Meta-anaylsis in human brain mappingR01MH074457 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HLTH SCIENCE CENTER · PI FOX, PETER THORNTON · 2006 to 2024
$10.5M
Meta-analysis in human brain mappingR56MH074457 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HLTH SCIENCE CENTER · PI FOX, PETER THORNTON · 2020 to 2020
$543k
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft EI 816/11-1European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme 7202070European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme 785907Helmholtz Portfolio Theme "Supercomputing and Modeling for the Human Brain"NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH074457NIMH NIH HHS R01-MH074457NIMH NIH HHS R56 MH074457
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over the past decades, neuroimaging has become widely used to investigate structural and functional brain abnormality in neuropsychiatric disorders. The results of individual neuroimaging studies, however, are frequently inconsistent due to small and heterogeneous samples, analytical flexibility, and publication bias toward positive findings. To consolidate the emergent findings toward clinically useful insight, meta-analyses have been developed to integrate the results of studies and identify areas that are consistently involved in pathophysiology of particular neuropsychiatric disorders. However, it should be considered that the results of meta-analyses could also be divergent due to heterogeneity in search strategy, selection criteria, imaging modalities, behavioral tasks, number of experiments, data organization methods, and statistical analysis with different multiple comparison thresholds. Following an introduction to the problem and the concepts of quantitative summaries of neuroimaging findings, we propose practical recommendations for clinicians and researchers for conducting transparent and methodologically sound neuroimaging meta-analyses. This should help to consolidate the search for convergent regional brain abnormality in neuropsychiatric disorders.

Indexed as

BrainMental DisordersMeta-Analysis as TopicNeuroimagingResearch DesignHumansSystematic Reviews as Topicguidelinemeta-analysisneuroimagingneuropsychiatric disorderssystematic review

Identifiers

PMID31379049
PMCPMC6865620
OpenAlexW2964782455

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.