Cited by 805Functional Brain Connectivity StudiesMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications

Ten simple rules for neuroimaging meta-analysis

Open access
Müller, Veronika I., Cieslik, Edna C., Laird, Angela R., Fox, Peter T., Radua, Joaquim, Mataix-Cols, David, Tench, Christopher R., Yarkoni, Tal +4 more·2018·Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews

Abstract

Neuroimaging has evolved into a widely used method to investigate the functional neuroanatomy, brain-behaviour relationships, and pathophysiology of brain disorders, yielding a literature of more than 30,000 papers. With such an explosion of data, it is increasingly difficult to sift through the literature and distinguish spurious from replicable findings. Furthermore, due to the large number of studies, it is challenging to keep track of the wealth of findings. A variety of meta-analytical methods (coordinate-based and image-based) have been developed to help summarise and integrate the vast amount of data arising from neuroimaging studies. However, the field lacks specific guidelines for the conduct of such meta-analyses. Based on our combined experience, we propose best-practice recommendations that researchers from multiple disciplines may find helpful. In addition, we provide specific guidelines and a checklist that will hopefully improve the transparency, traceability, replicability and reporting of meta-analytical results of neuroimaging data.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.11.012

Cites

72 of 72 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Müller, V. I., Cieslik, E. C., Laird, A. R., Fox, P. T., Radua, J., Mataix-Cols, D., Tench, C. R., Yarkoni, T., Nichols, T. E., Turkeltaub, P. E., Wager, T. D., & Eickhoff, S. B.
Affiliations
  • Forschungszentrum Jülich (DE)
  • Florida International University (US)
  • The University of Texas at San Antonio Health Science Center (US)
  • University of Nottingham (GB)
  • The University of Texas at Austin (US)
  • University of Warwick (GB)
  • MedStar National Rehabilitation Hospital (US)
  • University of Colorado Boulder (US)
Corresponding author
  • Müller, Veronika I.
  • Cieslik, Edna C.
Venue
Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-01
Volume
84
Pages
151-161
ISSN
0149-7634 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2768973744
Cited by
805
References
72
Citations by year
2026: 98 · 2025: 113 · 2024: 95 · 2023: 103 · 2022: 127 · 2021: 113 · 2020: 82 · 2019: 53 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1
FWCI
4.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Warwick Research Archive Portal (University of Warwick) (acceptedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • JuSER (Forschungszentrum Jülich) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • JuSER (Forschungszentrum Jülich) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust (100309/Z/12/Z)
  • Horizon 2020 Framework Programme (7202070)
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (EI 816/4-1, LA 3071/3-1)
  • National Institutes of Health (R01 NS075066-01A1, R01DA035484, 2R01MH076136)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01-MH074457)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
Keywords
neuroimaging meta-analysis, best practice guidelines, coordinate-based meta-analysis, replicability, reporting transparency, traceability, spurious findings, functional neuroanatomy, brain-behavior relationship, brain disorders
MeSH terms
Humans, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Guidelines as Topic, 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