Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42211579›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neuroimaging2026

Evaluating the methodological quality of coordinate-based meta-analyses: the qual-CBMA checklist.

Joaquim Radua, Lydia Fortea, Anton Albajes-Eizagirre, Claudia Eickhoff, Miquel A Fullana, Paolo Fusar-Poli, David Mataix-Cols, Jae Il Shin, Aleix Solanes, Masoud Tahmasian and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neuroimaging, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

14 authors.

Joaquim Radua *Institut d'Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer (IDIBAPS), Barcelona, Spain.
Lydia Fortea *Institut d'Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer (IDIBAPS), Barcelona, Spain.
Anton Albajes-EizagirreInstitut d'Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer (IDIBAPS), Barcelona, Spain.
Claudia EickhoffInstitute of Clinical Neuroscience and Medical Psychology, Medical Faculty and University Hospital Düsseldorf, Heinrich Heine University, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Miquel A FullanaInstitut d'Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer (IDIBAPS), Barcelona, Spain.
Paolo Fusar-PoliDepartment of Brain and Behavioral Sciences, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy.
David Mataix-ColsCentre for Psychiatric Research, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Jae Il ShinDepartment of Pediatrics, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Aleix SolanesInstitut d'Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer (IDIBAPS), Barcelona, Spain.
Masoud TahmasianResearch Centre Jülich, Institute of Neuroscience and Medicine (INM-7), Jülich, Germany.
Eduard VietaInstitut d'Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer (IDIBAPS), Barcelona, Spain.
Enric VilajosanaInstitut d'Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer (IDIBAPS), Barcelona, Spain.
Simon B EickhoffResearch Centre Jülich, Institute of Neuroscience and Medicine (INM-7), Jülich, Germany.
Veronika I MüllerResearch Centre Jülich, Institute of Neuroscience and Medicine (INM-7), Jülich, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Voxel-based meta-analyses-also known as coordinate-based meta-analyses (CBMAs)-are powerful tools for synthesizing evidence from neuroimaging studies in human neuroscience, including investigations of psychological functions and differences in brain disorders. To achieve their full potential in accurately assessing the evidence, CBMAs should adhere to established best-practicmpe guidelines, such as the "Ten Simple Rules" published in 2018. Yet, even when studies report following these recommendations, the degree to which individual items are applicable or fully addressed is often unclear. To better support the evaluation of methodological rigor-which the 10 rules already promote but are not always consistently applied-, the developers of the most used CBMA methods followed a Delphi-style iterative process to create a reporting checklist focused on the methodological quality of CBMAs (Qual-CBMA). Qual-CBMA comprises criteria (e.g., preregistration, systematic search, homogeneous study characteristics, etc.) that authors should verify and comment on explicitly in the checklist (and, when unmet, also in the manuscript). The checklist encourages rigor and transparency by prompting authors to identify potential methodological limitations and to discuss their relevance-or irrelevance-in the context of their specific study. The checklist is designed as an aid to make reporting clearer and more transparent, not as a tool for evaluating whether authors have done something incorrectly. In this context, a high-quality CBMA is not defined by meeting every criterion, but by clearly commenting on the criteria-and explaining when unmet criteria are appropriately not applicable given the study's objectives. We encourage authors to submit the Qual-CBMA checklist, together with their accompanying comments, when publishing new CBMAs, thereby reinforcing transparency and rigorous methodology and advancing understanding in cognitive neuroscience and clinical conditions.

Indexed as

activation likelihood estimationchecklistmeta-analysisneuroimagingseed-based d mapping

Identifiers

PMID42211579
PMCPMC13212178

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.