The DOI matches its Crossref record; 72 of the 72 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Ten simple rules for neuroimaging meta-analysis
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“ALE analysis of the unbalanced and balanced datasets used a cluster-forming threshold of p < 0.001 (uncorrected, 1000 permutations), and a cluster-level family-wise error (FWE) corrected threshold of p < 0.05, as recommended by Müller et al. (2018).”
From Bridging phenomenology and neural mechanisms of inner speech: ALE meta-analysis on egocentricity and spontaneity in a dual-mechanistic framework (2023) · cites this paper as Müller et al. (2018)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“In line with established methodological standards for neuroimaging meta-analyses85, we systematically synthesised evidence on task-related activation changes following CWMT.”
From Meta-analysis of computerised working memory training: behavioural gains, training parameters, transfer mechanisms, and neural correlates (2026) · cites this paper as [85]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“In the current paper, we follow recent guidelines put forward for metaanalysing neuroimaging studies (Muller et al., 2018).”
From The inhibition of automatic imitation: a meta-analysis and synthesis of fMRI studies (2018) · cites this paper as Muller et al., 2018
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“To assess the robustness of our main findings, we performed a Jackknife analysis, which consists of repeating the statistical analyses by discarding one study each time, thus demonstrating the stability of the results (Müller et al., 2018).”
From Overlapping and differential neuropharmacological mechanisms of stimulants and nonstimulants for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: A comparative neuroimaging analysis (2024) · cites this paper as Müller et al., 2018
In the citing paper
“This review adheres to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines (Page et al., 2021) and follows the best-practice recommendations for conducting coordinate-based meta-analyses (Müller et al., 2018, Tahmasian et al., 2019).”
From Inhibitory control in obsessive compulsive disorder: a systematic review and activation likelihood estimation meta-analysis of functional magnetic resonance imaging studies (2022) · cites this paper as Müller et al., 2018
In the citing paper
“Notably, this null-finding occurred in a well-powered meta-analysis: the sample of 35 experiments is considered adequate by present guidelines for neuroimaging meta-analyses (Müller et al., 2018, Tahmasian et al., 2019) and gave us more than 80 % power to detect a convergence of activation differences in areas that were identified in just 7 (20 %) of the experiments (Eickhoff et al., 2016)”
From Inhibitory control in obsessive compulsive disorder: a systematic review and activation likelihood estimation meta-analysis of functional magnetic resonance imaging studies (2022) · cites this paper as Müller et al., 2018
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Co-Planar Stereotaxic Atlas of the Human Brain
Talairach, J., & Tournoux, P. (1988) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 11,798
The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results.
Rosenthal, R. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638 · Cited by 9,068 · cited 1×
“That is, there is in general in science a bias to publish mainly significant results while experiments failing to reject the null-hypothesis are often not reported (Ioannidis et al., 2014; Rosenthal, 1979).”
Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience
Button, K. S., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Mokrysz, C., Nosek, B. A., Flint, J., Robinson, E. S. J., & Munafò, M. R. (2013) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn3475 · Cited by 7,641 · cited 2×
“However, single imaging studies usually rely on underpowered studies with small sample sizes, which leads to many missed results (Button et al., 2013) and pushes researchers towards analyses and thresholding procedures that increase false positives (Eklund et al., 2016; Wager et al., 2007; Wager et…”
BackgroundCo-planar stereotaxic atlas of the human brain
Laitinen, L. (1989) · Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery · doi:10.1016/0303-8467(89)90128-5 · Cited by 7,565
Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797611417632 · Cited by 6,567
SMITH, S., & NICHOLS, T. (2009) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.03.061 · Cited by 5,250
Self-citationLarge-scale automated synthesis of human functional neuroimaging data.
Yarkoni, T., Poldrack, R. A., Nichols, T. E., Van Essen, D. C., & Wager, T. D. (2011) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/nmeth.1635 · Cited by 3,686
Self-citationCluster failure: why fMRI inferences for spatial extent have inflated false-positive rates
Eklund, A., Nichols, T. E., & Knutsson, H. (2016) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1602413113 · Cited by 3,487
Self-citationAutomatic 3D intersubject registration of MR volumetric data in standardized Talairach space
Collins, D. L., Neelin, P., Peters, T. M., & Evans, A. C. (1994) · Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography · doi:10.1097/00004728-199403000-00005 · Cited by 3,431 · cited 10×
“A rule of thumb is that coordinates of experiments where authors used SPM (version SPM99 and later) or FSL with normalization to the software's standard template and do not report any transformation should be treated as being in MNI as these software packages use MNI as standard space.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialPublication Manual of the American Psychological Association
DeCleene, K. E., & Fogo, J. (2011) · Occupational Therapy In Health Care · doi:10.3109/07380577.2011.629024 · Cited by 3,178
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–118 of 118
Chen, Y., Chaudhary, S., & Li, C. R. (2022) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2022.119764 · Cited by 62
Conca, F., Esposito, V., Giusto, G., Cappa, S. F., & Catricalà, E. (2022) · Ageing Research Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.arr.2022.101760 · Cited by 54
Zheng, L., Miao, M., & Gan, Y. (2022) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2022.104721 · Cited by 41
Pratts, J., Pobric, G., & Yao, B. (2023) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2023.120399 · Cited by 34
“ALE analysis of the unbalanced and balanced datasets used a cluster-forming threshold of p < 0.001 (uncorrected, 1000 permutations), and a cluster-level family-wise error (FWE) corrected threshold of p < 0.05, as recommended by Müller et al. (2018).”
MethodInfluentialThe neural signature of reality‐monitoring: A meta‐analysis of functional neuroimaging studies
Lavallé, L., Brunelin, J., Jardri, R., Haesebaert, F., & Mondino, M. (2023) · Human Brain Mapping · doi:10.1002/hbm.26387 · Cited by 24
Li, G., Xia, H., Teng, G., & Chen, A. (2025) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2025.106008 · Cited by 24
Neural correlates of working memory training: An fMRI meta-analysis
Zhang, Y., Fu, J., & Zhao, X. (2024) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2024.120885 · Cited by 20
Hazelton, J. L., Carneiro, F., Maito, M., Richter, F., Legaz, A., Altschuler, F., Cubillos-Pinilla, L., Chen, Y., Doherty, C. P., Baez, S., et al. (2025) · Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2024.10.013 · Cited by 21
Funch Uhre, V., Melissa Larsen, K., Marc Herz, D., Baaré, W., Katrine Pagsberg, A., & Roman Siebner, H. (2022) · NeuroImage: Clinical · doi:10.1016/j.nicl.2022.103268 · Cited by 18
Universality and language specificity of brain Reading networks: A developmental perspective
Zhang, J., Chen, J., & Ding, G. (2024) · Developmental Science · doi:10.1111/desc.13379 · Cited by 16
Standardized Effect Sizes and Image-Based Meta-Analytical Approaches for fMRI Data
Bossier, H., Nichols, T. E., & Moerkerke, B. (2019) · doi:10.1101/865881 · Cited by 14
Self-citationSulpizio, V., Teghil, A., Pitzalis, S., & Boccia, M. (2024) · Brain Structure and Function · doi:10.1007/s00429-024-02790-8 · Cited by 7
Pan, N., Ma, T., Liu, Y., Zhang, S., Hu, S., Shekara, A., Cao, H., Gong, Q., & Chen, Y. (2024) · Psychological Medicine · doi:10.1017/s003329172400285x · Cited by 7
“To assess the robustness of our main findings, we performed a Jackknife analysis, which consists of repeating the statistical analyses by discarding one study each time, thus demonstrating the stability of the results (Müller et al., 2018).”
Heckner, M. K., Cieslik, E. C., Eickhoff, S. B., Camilleri, J. A., Hoffstaedter, F., & Langner, R. (2020) · doi:10.1101/2020.07.15.204941
Self-citationLi, Z., Tong, G., Wang, Y., Ruan, H., Zheng, Z., Cheng, J., & Wang, Z. (2024) · The World Journal of Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1080/15622975.2023.2251057 · Cited by 4
Liloia, D., Rocca, P., Brasso, C., Tanaka, M., Manuello, J., Crocetta, A., Duca, S., Costa, T., & Cauda, F. (2026) · Psychological Medicine · doi:10.1017/s0033291726103511 · Cited by 4
Li, G., Liu, Y., & Chen, A. (2026) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-026-02478-9 · Cited by 4
“In line with established methodological standards for neuroimaging meta-analyses 85 , we systematically synthesised evidence on task-related activation changes following CWMT. Study identi fi cation and selection were carried out in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines, with comprehensive details…”
The inhibition of automatic imitation: a meta-analysis and synthesis of fMRI studies
Darda, K. M., & Ramsey, R. (2018) · bioRxiv · doi:10.1101/334938 · Cited by 43
“In the current paper, we follow recent guidelines put forward for meta-analysing neuroimaging studies (Müller et al., 2018).”
Metadata
- 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.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2018-01
- Volume
- 84
- Pages
- 151-161
- ISSN
- 0149-7634 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC5918306
- 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
- FWCI
- 4.74
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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
