Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34851460›Full record

SynthesisBrain structure & function2022

Handedness and midsagittal corpus callosum morphology: a meta-analytic evaluation.

René Westerhausen, Marietta Papadatou-Pastou

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Handedness and creativity: Facts and fictions.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Hand Preference in Stuttering: Meta-Analyses.Neuropsychology review · 2024
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. From fossils to mind.Communications biology · 2023
    Review
  8. 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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

René WesterhausenDepartment of Psychology, University of Oslo, POB 1094 Blindern, 0317, Oslo, Norway. rene.westerhausen@psykologi.uio.no.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7107-2712
Marietta Papadatou-PastouBiomedical Research Foundation of the Academy of Athens, Athens, Greece.
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens · GRUniversity of Oslo · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Corpus CallosumFunctional LateralityBrainHandHealthy VolunteersHumansBrain asymmetryCorpus callosumHandednessHand preference

Identifiers

PMID34851460
PMCPMC8843913
OpenAlexW3215922856

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.