Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32860642›Full record

SynthesisResearch synthesis methods2020

Estimating the prevalence of missing experiments in a neuroimaging meta-analysis.

Pantelis Samartsidis, Silvia Montagna, Angela R Laird, Peter T Fox, Timothy D Johnson, Thomas E Nichols

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Research synthesis methods, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 19 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 19 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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 19 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. 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. 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

6 authors.

Pantelis SamartsidisMRC Biostatistics Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4491-9655
Silvia MontagnaDipartimento di Scienze Economico-sociali e Matematico-statistiche (ESOMAS), University of Torino, Turin, Italy.
Angela R LairdDepartment of Physics, Florida International University, Miami, Florida, USA.
Peter T FoxResearch Imaging Institute, University of Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas, USA.
Timothy D JohnsonDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Thomas E NicholsOxford Big Data Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4516-5103

Funding

Meta-anaylsis in human brain mappingR01MH074457 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HLTH SCIENCE CENTER · PI FOX, PETER THORNTON · 2006 to 2024
$10.5M
SOLAR-Eclipse Computational Tools for Imaging GeneticsR01EB015611 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HLTH SCI CTR HOUSTON · PI KOCHUNOV, PETER V. · 2012 to 2024
$5.0M
Bayesian Spatial Point Process Modeling of Neuroimage DataR01NS075066 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI JOHNSON, TIMOTHY D · 2012 to 2016
$1.5M
Meta-analysis in human brain mappingR56MH074457 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HLTH SCIENCE CENTER · PI FOX, PETER THORNTON · 2020 to 2020
$543k
Medical Research Council MC_UU_00002/11NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB015611NIH HHS 5-R01-NS-075066NIH HHS MH074457NIH HHS R01 2R01EB015611-04NIH HHS RPPG-0616-20008NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH074457NIMH NIH HHS R56 MH074457NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS075066Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 100309/Z/12/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Coordinate-based meta-analyses (CBMA) allow researchers to combine the results from multiple functional magnetic resonance imaging experiments with the goal of obtaining results that are more likely to generalize. However, the interpretation of CBMA findings can be impaired by the file drawer problem, a type of publication bias that refers to experiments that are carried out but are not published. Using foci per contrast count data from the BrainMap database, we propose a zero-truncated modeling approach that allows us to estimate the prevalence of nonsignificant experiments. We validate our method with simulations and real coordinate data generated from the Human Connectome Project. Application of our method to the data from BrainMap provides evidence for the existence of a file drawer effect, with the rate of missing experiments estimated as at least 6 per 100 reported. The R code that we used is available at https://osf.io/ayhfv/.

Indexed as

Brain MappingComputer GraphicsComputer SimulationConnectomeDatabases, FactualData Interpretation, StatisticalHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance ImagingMeta-Analysis as TopicMonte Carlo MethodNeuroimagingPrevalencemeta-analysisneuroimagingpublication-biaszero-truncated modeling

Identifiers

PMID32860642
PMCPMC7780291

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.