ArticleFrontiers in neuroimaging2026
Evaluating the methodological quality of coordinate-based meta-analyses: the qual-CBMA checklist.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.