Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37213378›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in psychology2023

Toward consistent reporting of sample characteristics in studies investigating the biological mechanisms of romantic love.

Adam Bode, Marta Kowal

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in psychology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  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.

Adam BodeSchool of Archaeology and Anthropology, ANU College of Arts and Social Sciences, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
Marta KowalIDN Being Human Lab, University of Wrocław, Wrocław, Poland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this non-systematic review, we consider the sample reporting practices of 42 studies up to and including 2021 investigating the biological mechanisms of romantic love (i.e., 31 neuroimaging studies, nine endocrinological studies, one genetics study, and one combined neuroimaging and genetics study). We searched scientific databases using key terms and drew on our and other authors' knowledge to identify studies that investigated the mechanisms associated with romantic love using neuroimaging, endocrinological, and genetic methods. Only studies with a group or entire sample experiencing romantic love were included. The aim was to collate all relevant studies and determine the comparability of studies and ability to assess the generalizability of findings. We summarize how these studies report sex/gender, age, romantic love, relationship duration/time in love, and sample descriptors. We then outline the case for promoting comparability and the ability to determine generalizability in future studies. The findings indicate a limited ability to compare studies' samples or make an assessment of the generalizability of findings. Existing studies are not representative of the general population in a particular country or globally. We conclude by presenting ideas about how best to report sex, age, romantic love characteristics, relationship status, time in love, relationship duration, relationship satisfaction, type of unrequited love, sexual activity, cultural characteristics, socio-economic status, student status, and method-relevant descriptors. If our ideas are adopted, in part or in whole, we expect the comparability of studies to increase. Adopting our ideas will also make it easier to make an assessment of the generalizability of findings.

Indexed as

endocrinologygeneticsmethodsneuroimagingromantic lovesample

Identifiers

PMID37213378
PMCPMC10192910

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.