↓ Skip to main content

Publication Bias in Neuroimaging Research: Implications for Meta-Analyses

Overview of attention for article published in Neuroinformatics, June 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
79 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
110 Mendeley
Title
Publication Bias in Neuroimaging Research: Implications for Meta-Analyses
Published in
Neuroinformatics, June 2011
DOI 10.1007/s12021-011-9125-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Robin G. Jennings, John D. Van Horn

Abstract

Neuroimaging and the neurosciences have made notable advances in sharing activation results through detailed databases, making meta-analysis of the published research faster and easier. However, the effect of publication bias in these fields has not been previously addressed or accounted for in the developed meta-analytic methods. In this article, we examine publication bias in functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) for tasks involving working memory in the frontal lobes (Brodmann Areas 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 37, 45, 46, and 47). Seventy-four studies were selected from the literature and the effect of publication bias was examined using a number of regression-based techniques. Pearson's r correlation coefficient and Cohen's d effect size estimates were computed for the activation in each study and compared to the study sample size using Egger's regression, Macaskill's regression, and the 'Trim and Fill' method. Evidence for publication bias was identified in this body of literature (p < 0.01 for each test), generally, though was neither task- nor sub-region-dependent. While we focused our analysis on this subgroup of brain mapping studies, we believe our findings generalize to the brain imaging literature as a whole and databases seeking to curate their collective results. While neuroimaging databases of summary effects are of enormous value to the community, the potential publication bias should be considered when performing meta-analyses based on database contents.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 110 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 3%
Japan 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 104 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 19%
Researcher 20 18%
Student > Master 15 14%
Student > Bachelor 8 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 7 6%
Other 22 20%
Unknown 17 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 26 24%
Neuroscience 19 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 6%
Mathematics 4 4%
Other 19 17%
Unknown 28 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 January 2013.
All research outputs
#12,576,964
of 22,693,205 outputs
Outputs from Neuroinformatics
#191
of 401 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75,015
of 111,805 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuroinformatics
#2
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,693,205 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 401 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 111,805 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.