SynthesisBrain structure & function2022
Handedness and midsagittal corpus callosum morphology: a meta-analytic evaluation.
Synthesis in Brain structure & function, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Handedness and creativity: Facts and fictions.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025Pooled it
- Hand Preference in Stuttering: Meta-Analyses.Neuropsychology review · 2024Pooled it
- The Association Between Laterality and Stroke Severity: A Cross-Sectional Study.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Non-right-handedness and psychiatric disorders: A synthesis of epidemiological, genetic, and neurobiological evidence.World journal of psychiatry · 2026Review
- Effects of motor activity versus cognitive demand on asymmetries in EEG frequency bands and their relation to handedness.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2026Article
- No Incidental Memory Advantage for Mixed Handed vs. Consistent Right Handed Participants: Conflicting Results From Earlier Research.Perceptual and motor skills · 2024Article
- From fossils to mind.Communications biology · 2023Review
- Hand preference and the corpus callosum: Is there really no association?Neuroimage. Reports · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Following a series of seminal studies in the 1980s, left or mixed hand preference is widely thought to be associated with a larger corpus callosum than right handedness, influencing the interpretation of findings and various theories related to interhemispheric processing, brain lateralisation, and hand preference. Recent reviews, however, find inconsistencies in the literature and cast doubt on the existence of such an association. The present study was conducted to clarify the relationship between hand preference and callosal morphology in a series of meta-analyses. For this purpose, articles were identified via a search in PubMed and Web Of Science databases. Studies reporting findings relating to handedness (assessed as hand preference) and corpus-callosum morphology in healthy participants were considered eligible. On the basis of a total of k = 24 identified studies and databases, random-effects meta-analyses were conducted considering four different group comparisons: (a) dominantly right- (dRH) and left-hand preference (dLH), (b) consistent right (cRH) and non-cRH preference, (c) cRH with mixed-hand preference (MH), and (d) cRH with consistent left-hand hand preference (cLH). For none of these meta-analyses did we find a significant effect of hand preference, and narrow confidence intervals suggest that the existence of population effects larger than 1% explained variance could be excluded. For example, considering the comparison of dRH and dLH (k = 14 studies; 1910 dRH and 646 dLH participants) the mean effect size was Hedge's g = 0.016 (95% confidence interval: - 0.12 to 0.15; explained variance: < 0.001%). Thus, the common practice of assuming an increase in callosal connectivity based on mixed or left hand preference is likely invalid.
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.