Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39242922›Full record

ReviewNeuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology2024

Reporting checklists in neuroimaging: promoting transparency, replicability, and reproducibility.

Hamed Ekhtiari, Mehran Zare-Bidoky, Arshiya Sangchooli, Alireza Valyan, Anissa Abi-Dargham, Dara M Cannon, Cameron S Carter, Hugh Garavan, Tony P George, Peyman Ghobadi-Azbari and 8 more

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. New waves in psychiatric neuroimaging.Nature neuroscience · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Multi-center QA of ultrahigh-field systems.Magma (New York, N.Y.) · 2025
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors.

Hamed EkhtiariDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA. ekhti001@umn.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-6902-8798
Mehran Zare-BidokyIranian National Center for Addiction Studies, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Arshiya SangchooliMelbourne School of Psychological Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Alireza ValyanIranian National Center for Addiction Studies, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Anissa Abi-DarghamDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Health, Stony Brook University Renaissance School of Medicine, Stony Brook, NY, USA.
Dara M CannonClinical Neuroimaging Laboratory, Center for Neuroimaging, Cognition & Genomics, College of Medicine, Nursing & Health Sciences, University of Galway, Galway, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0001-7378-3411
Cameron S CarterDepartment of Psychiatry and Human Behavior, University of California at Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA.
Hugh GaravanDepartments of Psychiatry and Psychology, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8939-1014
Tony P GeorgeInstitute for Mental Health Policy and Research at CAMH, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-1645-9767
Peyman Ghobadi-AzbariIranian National Center for Addiction Studies, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Christoph JuchemDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Columbia University Fu Foundation, School of Engineering and Applied Science, New York, NY, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1505-201X
John H KrystalDepartment of Psychiatry, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6952-1726
Thomas E NicholsNuffield Department of Population Health, Big Data Institute, Li Ka Shing Centre for Health Information and Discovery, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4516-5103
Dost ÖngürMcLean Hospital, Belmont, MA, USA.
Cyril R PernetNeurobiology Research Unit, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Russell A PoldrackDepartment of Psychology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Paul M ThompsonImaging Genetics Center, Mark & Mary Stevens Neuroimaging & Informatics Institute, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Marina del Rey, CA, USA.
Martin P PaulusLaureate Institute for Brain Research, Tulsa, OK, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0825-3606

Funding

Yale Clinical and Translational Science Award (U Component)UL1TR001863 · NCATS · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI John H. Krystal, LUCILA OHNO-MACHADO · 2016 to 2026
$102.9M
Translational Technologies CoreP50AA012870 · NIAAA · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI Matthew J Girgenti · 2001 to 2026
$43.7M
The Center for Neuroscience-based Mental Health Assessment and Prediction (NEUROMAP)P20GM121312 · NIGMS · LAUREATE INSTITUTE FOR BRAIN RESEARCH · PI Masaya Misaki · 2017 to 2026
$23.7M
15/21 ABCD-USA Consortium: Research Project Site at LIBRU01DA050989 · NIDA · LAUREATE INSTITUTE FOR BRAIN RESEARCH · PI ROBIN L AUPPERLE, MARTIN P. PAULUS · 2020 to 2026
$14.7M
Brain and Behavior Research Foundation (Brain & Behavior Research Foundation) 27305NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001863NIAAA NIH HHS P50 AA012870NIDA NIH HHS U01 DA050989NIGMS NIH HHS P20 GM121312Novo Nordisk Fonden (Novo Nordisk Foundation) NNF20OC0063277U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | NIH | National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) Grant 2 P20 GM121312U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | NIH | National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) 2P50AA012870-23U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | NIH | National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) U01DA050989
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Neuroimaging plays a crucial role in understanding brain structure and function, but the lack of transparency, reproducibility, and reliability of findings is a significant obstacle for the field. To address these challenges, there are ongoing efforts to develop reporting checklists for neuroimaging studies to improve the reporting of fundamental aspects of study design and execution. In this review, we first define what we mean by a neuroimaging reporting checklist and then discuss how a reporting checklist can be developed and implemented. We consider the core values that should inform checklist design, including transparency, repeatability, data sharing, diversity, and supporting innovations. We then share experiences with currently available neuroimaging checklists. We review the motivation for creating checklists and whether checklists achieve their intended objectives, before proposing a development cycle for neuroimaging reporting checklists and describing each implementation step. We emphasize the importance of reporting checklists in enhancing the quality of data repositories and consortia, how they can support education and best practices, and how emerging computational methods, like artificial intelligence, can help checklist development and adherence. We also highlight the role that funding agencies and global collaborations can play in supporting the adoption of neuroimaging reporting checklists. We hope this review will encourage better adherence to available checklists and promote the development of new ones, and ultimately increase the quality, transparency, and reproducibility of neuroimaging research.

Indexed as

ChecklistNeuroimagingHumansReproducibility of ResultsResearch Design

Identifiers

PMID39242922
PMCPMC11525976

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.