PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
The collection of recommendations and guidelines for conducting and reporting neuroimaging meta-analyses, called \"Ten simple rules for neuroimaging meta-analysis\" by Müller et al., has been published for a few years. Here, the papers citing this reference were examined to evaluate the rationale of the quotations and what quotation errors existed. In May 2023, an online query via Scopus identified 386 papers citing this reference, 2 of which were inaccessible. The resultant 384 papers were checked to identify the total number of quotations to the reference, the exact quotations, which of the ten recommendations/rules was concerned by each quotation, and if any quotation error existed. Results found that the reference by Müller et al. were quoted 804 times by the 384 papers, meaning an average of 2.1 quotations per paper. Out of the 804 quotations, the three rules that the researchers most frequently referred were the power of the meta-analysis (Rule #2, 14.1%), the consistency of the search coverage and reference space (Rule #4, 13.8%), and the statistical threshold (Rule #8, 10.2%). Overall, 63 quotations from 51 papers contained some errors. In other words, 7.8% (63/804) of the quotations contained errors and they involved 13.3% (51/384) of the papers. The commonest quotation errors were dealing with a failure to substantiate the assertion, unrelated to the assertion, and oversimplification of the original notion. Some notable quotation error examples were to quote Müller et al. to substantiate the assertion of having at least 10 datasets to be considered to have adequate power for ES-SDM meta-analysis (no such recommendation), and having a misquoted primary cluster-forming threshold of p < 0.05 or p < 0.005 (should be p < 0.001). The neuroscience community should be cautious and double-check the accuracy of assertions, even with a quotation.
摘要：
收集进行和报告神经影像学荟萃分析的建议和指南，Müller等人称之为“神经影像学荟萃分析的十条简单规则”。,已经出版了几年。这里,对引用该参考文献的论文进行了审查，以评估报价的合理性以及存在哪些报价错误。2023年5月，通过Scopus进行的在线查询发现386篇论文引用了这一参考文献，其中2人无法进入。对得到的384张论文进行了检查，以确定引用的报价总数，确切的报价,每条报价都涉及十条建议/规则中的哪一条，以及是否存在任何报价错误。结果发现，Müller等人的参考文献。被384篇论文引用了804次，意味着平均每篇论文2.1个报价。在804个报价中，研究人员最常提到的三条规则是荟萃分析的力量(规则#2，14.1%)，搜索覆盖和参考空间的一致性(规则#4，13.8%)，和统计阈值(规则#8,10.2%)。总的来说,51篇论文中的63篇引用包含一些错误。换句话说,7.8％（63/804）的报价包含错误，涉及13.3％（51/384）的论文。最常见的报价错误是处理未能证实断言，与断言无关，以及对原始概念的过度简化。一些值得注意的报价错误示例是引用Müller等人的话。证实至少有10个数据集被认为具有足够的ES-SDM荟萃分析能力的断言（没有这样的建议），并且具有p<0.05或p<0.005的错误引用的主要簇形成阈值(应该是p<0.001)。神经科学界应该谨慎，并仔细检查断言的准确性，即使有报价。
