A methodological checklist for fMRI drug cue reactivity studies: development and expert consensus
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Cue reactivity is one of the most frequently used paradigms in functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies of substance use disorders (SUDs). Although there have been promising results elucidating the neurocognitive mechanisms of SUDs and SUD treatments, the interpretability and reproducibility of these studies is limited by incomplete reporting of participants' characteristics, task design, craving assessment, scanning preparation and analysis decisions in fMRI drug cue reactivity (FDCR) experiments. This hampers clinical translation, not least because systematic review and meta-analysis of published work are difficult. This consensus paper and Delphi study aims to outline the important methodological aspects of FDCR research, present structured recommendations for more comprehensive methods reporting and review the FDCR literature to assess the reporting of items that are deemed important. Forty-five FDCR scientists from around the world participated in this study. First, an initial checklist of items deemed important in FDCR studies was developed by several members of the Enhanced NeuroImaging Genetics through Meta-Analyses (ENIGMA) Addiction working group on the basis of a systematic review. Using a modified Delphi consensus method, all experts were asked to comment on, revise or add items to the initial checklist, and then to rate the importance of each item in subsequent rounds. The reporting status of the items in the final checklist was investigated in 108 recently published FDCR studies identified through a systematic review. By the final round, 38 items reached the consensus threshold and were classified under seven major categories: 'Participants' Characteristics', 'General fMRI Information', 'General Task Information', 'Cue Information', 'Craving Assessment Inside Scanner', 'Craving Assessment Outside Scanner' and 'Pre- and Post-Scanning Considerations'. The review of the 108 FDCR papers revealed significant gaps in the reporting of the items considered important by the experts. For instance, whereas items in the 'General fMRI Information' category were reported in 90.5% of the reviewed papers, items in the 'Pre- and Post-Scanning Considerations' category were reported by only 44.7% of reviewed FDCR studies. Considering the notable and sometimes unexpected gaps in the reporting of items deemed to be important by experts in any FDCR study, the protocols could benefit from the adoption of reporting standards. This checklist, a living document to be updated as the field and its methods advance, can help improve experimental design, reporting and the widespread understanding of the FDCR protocols. This checklist can also provide a sample for developing consensus statements for protocols in other areas of task-based fMRI.
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
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.
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
Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research: A Synthesis of Recommendations
O’Brien, B. C., Harris, I. B., Beckman, T. J., Reed, D. A., & Cook, D. A. (2014) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000000388 · Cited by 12,211 · see citing works
The Delphi Technique: Making Sense of Consensus
Hsu, C.-C., & Sandford, B. A. (2007) · University of Massachusetts Amherst · doi:10.7275/pdz9-th90 · Cited by 4,500 · see citing works
Diamond, I. R., Grant, R. C., Feldman, B. M., Pencharz, P. B., Ling, S. C., Moore, A. M., & Wales, P. W. (2014) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.12.002 · Cited by 3,740 · see citing works
STARD 2015: an updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies
Bossuyt, P. M., Reitsma, J. B., Bruns, D. E., Gatsonis, C. A., Glasziou, P. P., Irwig, L., Lijmer, J. G., Moher, D., Rennie, D., de Vet, H. C. W., et al. (2015) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.h5527 · Cited by 3,660 · see citing works
Casey, B. J., Jones, R. M., & Hare, T. A. (2008) · Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1196/annals.1440.010 · Cited by 3,345 · see citing works
CONSORT 2010 statement: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials
Schulz, K. F., Altman, D. G., & Moher, D. (2010) · Journal of Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapeutics · doi:10.4103/0976-500x.72352 · Cited by 2,165 · see citing works
CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials
the CONSORT Group, Schulz, K. F., Altman, D. G., & Moher, D. (2010) · Trials · doi:10.1186/1745-6215-11-32 · Cited by 1,871 · see citing works
Meta‐analysis of cue‐reactivity in addiction research
Carter, B. L., & Tiffany, S. T. (1999) · Addiction · doi:10.1046/j.1360-0443.1999.9433273.x · Cited by 1,638 · see citing works
von Elm, E., Altman, D. G., Egger, M., Pocock, S. J., Gøtzsche, P. C., Vandenbroucke, J. P., & Initiative, F. T. S. (2007) · Bulletin of the World Health Organization · doi:10.2471/blt.07.045120 · Cited by 1,632 · see citing works
STARD 2015: An Updated List of Essential Items for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies
Bossuyt, P. M., Reitsma, J. B., Bruns, D. E., Gatsonis, C. A., Glasziou, P. P., Irwig, L., Lijmer, J. G., Moher, D., Rennie, D., de Vet, H. C. W., et al. (2015) · Clinical Chemistry · doi:10.1373/clinchem.2015.246280 · Cited by 984 · see citing works
Using the Delphi expert consensus method in mental health research
Jorm, A. F. (2015) · Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1177/0004867415600891 · Cited by 765 · see citing works
Chase, H. W., Eickhoff, S. B., Laird, A. R., & Hogarth, L. (2011) · Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2011.05.025 · Cited by 316 · see citing works
Analysis of task-based functional MRI data preprocessed with fMRIPrep
Esteban, O., Ciric, R., Finc, K., Blair, R. W., Markiewicz, C. J., Moodie, C. A., Kent, J. D., Goncalves, M., DuPre, E., Gomez, D. E. P., et al. (2020) · Nature Protocols · doi:10.1038/s41596-020-0327-3 · Cited by 315 · see citing works
Allocco, D. J., Cannon, L. A., Britt, A., Heil, J. E., Nersesov, A., Wehrenberg, S., Dawkins, K. D., & Kereiakes, D. J. (2010) · Trials · doi:10.1186/1745-6215-11-1 · Cited by 159 · see citing works
Research priorities for public mental health in Europe: recommendations of the ROAMER project
Forsman, A. K., Wahlbeck, K., Aaro, L. E., Alonso, J., Barry, M. M., Brunn, M., Cardoso, G., Cattan, M., de Girolamo, G., Eberhard-Gran, M., et al. (2015) · The European Journal of Public Health · doi:10.1093/eurpub/cku232 · Cited by 139 · see citing works
Dong, G., Wang, Z., Wang, Y., Du, X., & Potenza, M. N. (2019) · Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.pnpbp.2018.04.009 · Cited by 99 · see citing works
Self-citationPlant, R. R., & Turner, G. (2009) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/brm.41.3.598 · Cited by 96 · see citing works
Cue-elicited craving in heroin addicts at different abstinent time: An fMRI pilot study
Lou, M., Wang, E., Shen, Y., & Wang, J. (2012) · Substance Use & Misuse · doi:10.3109/10826084.2011.646381 · Cited by 61 · see citing works
Bias Introduced by Multiple Head Coils in MRI Research: An 8 Channel and 32 Channel Coil Comparison
Panman, J. L., To, Y. Y., van der Ende, E. L., Poos, J. M., Jiskoot, L. C., Meeter, L. H. H., Dopper, E. G. P., Bouts, M. J. R. J., van Osch, M. J. P., Rombouts, S. A. R. B., et al. (2019) · Frontiers in Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnins.2019.00729 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
Carry-over effects of smoking cue exposure on working memory performance
Wilson, S. J., Sayette, M. A., Fiez, J. A., & Brough, E. (2007) · Nicotine & Tobacco Research · doi:10.1080/14622200701243144 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
- Authors
- Ekhtiari, H., Zare-Bidoky, M., Sangchooli, A., Janes, A. C., Kaufman, M. J., Oliver, J. A., Prisciandaro, J. J., Wüstenberg, T., Anton, R. F., Bach, P., Baldacchino, A., Beck, A., Bjork, J. M., Brewer, J., Childress, A. R., Claus, E. D., Courtney, K. E., Ebrahimi, M., Filbey, F. M., Ghahremani, D. G., Azbari, P. G., Goldstein, R. Z., Goudriaan, A. E., Grodin, E. N., Hamilton, J. P., Hanlon, C. A., Hassani-Abharian, P., Heinz, A., Joseph, J. E., Kiefer, F., Zonoozi, A. K., Kober, H., Kuplicki, R., Li, Q., London, E. D., McClernon, J., Noori, H. R., Owens, M. M., Paulus, M. P., Perini, I., Potenza, M., Potvin, S., Ray, L., Schacht, J. P., Seo, D., Sinha, R., Smolka, M. N., Spanagel, R., Steele, V. R., Stein, E. A., Steins-Loeber, S., Tapert, S. F., Verdejo-Garcia, A., Vollstädt-Klein, S., Wetherill, R. R., Wilson, S. J., Witkiewitz, K., Yuan, K., Zhang, X., & Zilverstand, A.
- Affiliations
- University of Minnesota (US)
- Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences and Health Services (IR)
- Tehran University of Medical Sciences (IR)
- Harvard University (US)
- Duke University (US)
- Medical University of South Carolina (US)
- Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin (DE)
- Heidelberg University (DE)
- University of St Andrews (GB)
- University of Potsdam (DE)
- Virginia Commonwealth University (US)
- Brown University (US)
- University of Pennsylvania (US)
- Pennsylvania State University (US)
- University of California San Diego (US)
- The University of Texas at Dallas (US)
- University of California, Los Angeles (US)
- Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (US)
- Amsterdam Neuroscience (NL)
- Linköping University (SE)
- Wake Forest University Health Sciences (US)
- Mashhad University of Medical Sciences (IR)
- Laureate Institute for Brain Research (US)
- Tang Du Hospital (CN)
- McGovern Institute for Brain Research (US)
- University of Vermont (US)
- Yale University (US)
- Institut universitaire en santé mentale de Montréal (CA)
- University of Colorado Anschutz (US)
- Technische Universität Dresden (DE)
- Central Institute of Mental Health (DE)
- National Institute on Drug Abuse (US)
- University of New Mexico (US)
- Xidian University (CN)
- University of Science and Technology of China (CN)
- Corresponding author
- Ekhtiari, Hamed
- ORCID
- Ekhtiari, Hamed
- Zare-Bidoky, Mehran
- Sangchooli, Arshiya
- Janes, Amy C.
- Kaufman, Marc J.
- Oliver, Jason A.
- Prisciandaro, James J.
- Wüstenberg, Torsten
- Anton, Raymond F.
- Bach, Patrick
- Baldacchino, Alex
- Beck, Anne
- Bjork, James M.
- Brewer, Judson
- Claus, Eric D.
- Courtney, Kelly E.
- Ebrahimi, Mohsen
- Filbey, Francesca M.
- Ghahremani, Dara G.
- Goldstein, Rita Z.
- Goudriaan, Anna E.
- Grodin, Erica N.
- Hamilton, J. Paul
- Hanlon, Colleen A.
- Heinz, Andreas
- Joseph, Jane E.
- Kiefer, Falk
- Zonoozi, Arash Khojasteh
- Kuplicki, Rayus
- Li, Qiang
- London, Edythe D.
- Noori, Hamid R.
- Owens, Max M.
- Paulus, Martin P.
- Perini, Irene
- Potenza, Marc
- Potvin, Stéphane
- Ray, Lara
- Schacht, Joseph P.
- Seo, Dongju
- Sinha, Rajita
- Smolka, Michael N.
- Spanagel, Rainer
- Steele, Vaughn R.
- Stein, Elliot A.
- Steins-Loeber, Sabine
- Tapert, Susan F.
- Verdejo-Garcia, Antonio
- Vollstädt-Klein, Sabine
- Wetherill, Reagan R.
- Wilson, Stephen J.
- Witkiewitz, Katie
- Yuan, Kai
- Zhang, Xiaochu
- Zilverstand, Anna
- Venue
- Nature Protocols
- Published
- 2022-02-04
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 567-595
- ISSN
- 1750-2799 (ISSN-L)
- 1754-2189
- PMC
- PMC9063851
- OpenAlex
- W4213300278
- Cited by
- 89
- References
- 20
- Citations by year
- 2026: 16 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 12.09
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Nature Protocols (publishedVersion)
- medRxiv (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- DiVA (Linkoping University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
- MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Oklahoma Center for the Advancement of Science and Technology (#HR18-139)
- Brain and Behavior Research Foundation (NARSAD Young Investigator Award #27305)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
- Keywords
- drug cue reactivity, substance use disorders, reporting guidelines, research reproducibility, craving assessment, expert consensus, task design, participant characteristics
- MeSH terms
- Cues, Delphi Technique, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Reproducibility of Results, Checklist
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
