ReviewPloS one2022
Interaction effect: Are you doing the right thing?
Review in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Neurobiological effects of music-making interventions for older adults: a systematic review.Aging clinical and experimental research · 2025Pooled it
- The Locus-of-Hope Enhancement Program for Filipino Community Health Workers' Hope and Well-Being: A Parallel Randomized Alternative-Treatments Study.Journal of community psychology · 2026Trial
- Acute exercise-induced catecholaminergic responses after 16 weeks of community-based exercise training in early-stage breast cancer survivors.World journal of clinical oncology · 2026Trial
- Trial
- Site-Dependent Patterns of Affective Interference Control and Inhibitory Braking Following Auricular Stimulation.Applied psychophysiology and biofeedback · 2026Article
- How do my distributions differ? significance testing for the overlapping index using permutation tests.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Article
- Age-stratified associations of glycemia, blood pressure, and cholesterol with mortality in diabetes: A prospective cohort study.BMC medicine · 2026Article
- Reduced Pavlovian Value Updating Alters Decision-Making in Sign-Trackers.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2026Article
- Political partisanship and perceived partisan threat relate to simple trust decisions.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2026Article
- Effects of an open-label placebo on divergent thinking performance.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- The Impact of Verb Speed on the Processing of Goal-Oriented Visual Scenes.Journal of cognition · 2026Article
- Fusion of FDG and FMZ PET Reduces False-Positives in Predicting Epileptogenic Zone.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2025Article
- Gait speed-related changes in electrocortical activity in younger and older adults.Journal of neurophysiology · 2025Article
- Navigating the paradigm shift of sex inclusive preclinical research and lessons learnt.Communications biology · 2025Article
- Graded changes in local functional connectivity of the cerebral cortex in young people with depression.Psychological medicine · 2025Article
- Cortical Beta Power Reflects the Influence of Pavlovian Cues on Human Decision-Making.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025Article
- Cognitive flexibility in autism: How task predictability and sex influence performances.Autism research : official journal of the International Society for Autism Research · 2025Article
- Understanding false positives in control conditions: a simulation study ofFrontiers in neuroimaging · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
How to correctly interpret interaction effects has been largely discussed in scientific literature. Nevertheless, misinterpretations are still frequently observed, and neuroscience is not exempt from this trend. We reviewed 645 papers published from 2019 to 2020 and found that, in the 93.2% of studies reporting a statistically significant interaction effect (N = 221), post-hoc pairwise comparisons were the designated method adopted to interpret its results. Given the widespread use of this approach, we aim to: (1) highlight its limitations and how it can lead to misinterpretations of the interaction effect; (2) discuss more effective and powerful ways to correctly interpret interaction effects, including both explorative and model selection procedures. The paper provides practical examples and freely accessible online materials to reproduce all analyses.
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.