guest ::
| Home > Publications database > Evaluating the methodological quality of coordinate-based meta-analyses: the qual-CBMA checklist |
| Home > Publications database > Evaluating the methodological quality of coordinate-based meta-analyses: the qual-CBMA checklist |
| Journal Article | FZJ-2026-04846 |
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;
2026
Frontiers Media SA
Lausanne
This record in other databases:
Please use a persistent id in citations: doi:10.3389/fnimg.2026.1753543 doi:10.34734/FZJ-2026-04846
Abstract: Voxel-based meta-analyses—also known as coordinate-based meta-analyses (CBMAs)—are powerful tools for synthesizing evidence from neuroimaging studies in human neuroscience, including investigations of psychological functions and differences in brain disorders. To achieve their full potential in accurately assessing the evidence, CBMAs should adhere to established best-practicmpe guidelines, such as the “Ten Simple Rules” published in 2018. Yet, even when studies report following these recommendations, the degree to which individual items are applicable or fully addressed is often unclear. To better support the evaluation of methodological rigor—which the 10 rules already promote but are not always consistently applied—, the developers of the most used CBMA methods followed a Delphi-style iterative process to create a reporting checklist focused on the methodological quality of CBMAs (Qual-CBMA). Qual-CBMA comprises criteria (e.g., preregistration, systematic search, homogeneous study characteristics, etc.) that authors should verify and comment on explicitly in the checklist (and, when unmet, also in the manuscript). The checklist encourages rigor and transparency by prompting authors to identify potential methodological limitations and to discuss their relevance—or irrelevance—in the context of their specific study. The checklist is designed as an aid to make reporting clearer and more transparent, not as a tool for evaluating whether authors have done something incorrectly. In this context, a high-quality CBMA is not defined by meeting every criterion, but by clearly commenting on the criteria—and explaining when unmet criteria are appropriately not applicable given the study’s objectives. We encourage authors to submit the Qual-CBMA checklist, together with their accompanying comments, when publishing new CBMAs, thereby reinforcing transparency and rigorous methodology and advancing understanding in cognitive neuroscience and clinical conditions.
; 
; 
; 
; Article Processing Charges ; DOAJ Seal ; Fees
|
The record appears in these collections: |
PDF