SynthesisJournal of neuroscience methods2021
Bootstrap approach for meta-synthesis of MRI findings from multiple scanners.
Synthesis in Journal of neuroscience methods, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNeuroimaging data from large epidemiologic cohort studies often come from multiple scanners. The variations of MRI measurements due to differences in magnetic field strength, image acquisition protocols, and scanner vendors can influence the interpretation of aggregated data. The purpose of the present study was to compare methods that meta-analyze findings from a small number of different MRI scanners.
methodsWe proposed a bootstrap resampling method using individual participant data and compared it with two common random effects meta-analysis methods, DerSimonian-Laird and Hartung-Knapp, and a conventional pooling method that combines MRI data from different scanners. We first performed simulations to compare the power and coverage probabilities of the four methods in the absence and presence of scanner effects on measurements. We then examined the association of age with white matter hyperintensity (WMH) volumes from 787 participants.
resultsIn simulations, the bootstrap approach performed better than the other three methods in terms of coverage probability and power when scanner differences were present. However, the bootstrap approach was consistent with pooling, the optimal approach, when scanner differences were absent. In the association of age with WMH volume, we observed that age was significantly associated with WMH volumes using the bootstrap approach, pooling, and the DerSimonian-Laird method, but not using the Hartung-Knapp method (p < 0.0001 for the bootstrap approach, DerSimonian-Laird, and pooling but p = 0.1439 for the Hartung-Knapp approach).
conclusionThe bootstrap approach using individual participant data is suitable for integrating outcomes from multiple MRI scanners regardless of absence or presence of scanner effects on measurements.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.