Cited by 765Functional Brain Connectivity StudiesMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

A new meta-analytic method for neuroimaging studies that combines reported peak coordinates and statistical parametric maps

Open access
Radua, J., Mataix-Cols, D., Phillips, M.L., El-Hage, W., Kronhaus, D.M., Cardoner, N., Surguladze, S.·2012·European Psychiatry

Abstract

Meta-analyses are essential to summarize the results of the growing number of neuroimaging studies in psychiatry, neurology and allied disciplines. Image-based meta-analyses use full image information (i.e. the statistical parametric maps) and well-established statistics, but images are rarely available making them highly unfeasible. Peak-probability meta-analyses such as activation likelihood estimation (ALE) or multilevel kernel density analysis (MKDA) are more feasible as they only need reported peak coordinates. Signed-differences methods, such as signed differential mapping (SDM) build upon the positive features of existing peak-probability methods and enable meta-analyses of studies comparing patients with controls. In this paper we present a new version of SDM, named Effect Size SDM (ES-SDM), which enables the combination of statistical parametric maps and peak coordinates and uses well-established statistics. We validated the new method by comparing the results of an ES-SDM meta-analysis of studies on the brain response to fearful faces with the results of a pooled analysis of the original individual data. The results showed that ES-SDM is a valid and reliable coordinate-based method, whose performance might be additionally increased by including statistical parametric maps. We anticipate that ES-SDM will be a helpful tool for researchers in the fields of psychiatry, neurology and allied disciplines.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.eurpsy.2011.04.001

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • AES-SDM has been validated and used in several structural and functional fMRI studies.

    “This method, which has been validated and used in several structural and functional fMRI studies creates a brain map of the effect size of the difference between the two conditions (CS+ and CS -)for each study (either from SPMs or from peak information) and afterwards conducts a voxel-wise random-effects meta-analysis (weighting the studies for sample size and variance) 13,[20][21][22]”
  • Including original SPMs substantially increases the analysis's statistical power.

    “Including original SPMs, as opposed to including only peak regional effects (typically reported in tables of statistics), substantially increases the analyses statistical power 13”
  • The default AES-SDM statistical thresholds were based on uncorrected P-values, which may be seen as a limitation.

    “Despite providing an optimal balance between sensitivity and false positive rate, 13 the default AES-SDM statistical thresholds were based on uncorrected P-values, which may be seen as a limitation.”
  • The different studies included in the meta-analysis employed various statistical thresholds, and although the methods provide excellent control for false positives, it is more difficult to avoid false negatives.

    “Our study nevertheless has some limitations inherent to most meta-analyses; the different studies included employed various statistical thresholds, and although our methods provide excellent control for false positives it is more difficult to avoid false negatives.13”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 32 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Radua, J., Mataix-Cols, D., Phillips, M. L., El-Hage, W., Kronhaus, D. M., Cardoner, N., & Surguladze, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • Cygnet Healthcare Ltd (GB)
  • Bellvitge University Hospital (ES)
  • King's College London (GB)
Venue
European Psychiatry
Published
2011-06-11
Volume
27
Issue
8
Pages
605-611
ISSN
  • 0924-9338 (ISSN-L)
  • 1778-3585
OpenAlex
W2064405215
Cited by
765
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 63 · 2025: 81 · 2024: 60 · 2023: 73 · 2022: 75 · 2021: 76 · 2020: 57 · 2019: 45 · 2018: 58 · 2017: 45 · 2016: 40 · 2015: 23 · 2014: 26 · 2013: 25 · 2012: 17
FWCI
11.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • European Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Dipòsit Digital de la Universitat de Barcelona (Universitat de Barcelona) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
  • National Institute for Materials Science
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
activation likelihood estimation, method validation
MeSH terms
Adult, Brain, Brain Mapping, Facial Expression, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Neuropsychological Tests, Reproducibility of Results, Neuroimaging

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review