Dataset Information

Dear reviewers: Responses to common reviewer critiques about infant neuroimaging studies.

ABSTRACT: The field of adult neuroimaging relies on well-established principles in research design, imaging sequences, processing pipelines, as well as safety and data collection protocols. The field of infant magnetic resonance imaging, by comparison, is a young field with tremendous scientific potential but continuously evolving standards. The present article aims to initiate a constructive dialog between researchers who grapple with the challenges and inherent limitations of a nascent field and reviewers who evaluate their work. We address 20 questions that researchers commonly receive from research ethics boards, grant, and manuscript reviewers related to infant neuroimaging data collection, safety protocols, study planning, imaging sequences, decisions related to software and hardware, and data processing and sharing, while acknowledging both the accomplishments of the field and areas of much needed future advancements. This article reflects the cumulative knowledge of experts in the FIT'NG community and can act as a resource for both researchers and reviewers alike seeking a deeper understanding of the standards and tradeoffs involved in infant neuroimaging.

SUBMITTER: Korom M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8733260 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Dear reviewers: Responses to common reviewer critiques about infant neuroimaging studies.

Korom Marta M Camacho M Catalina MC Filippi Courtney A CA Licandro Roxane R Moore Lucille A LA Dufford Alexander A Zöllei Lilla L Graham Alice M AM Spann Marisa M Howell Brittany B Shultz Sarah S Scheinost Dustin D

Developmental cognitive neuroscience 20211227

The field of adult neuroimaging relies on well-established principles in research design, imaging sequences, processing pipelines, as well as safety and data collection protocols. The field of infant magnetic resonance imaging, by comparison, is a young field with tremendous scientific potential but continuously evolving standards. The present article aims to initiate a constructive dialog between researchers who grapple with the challenges and inherent limitations of a nascent field and reviewe ...[more]

PMID: 34974250

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDecision-makers increasingly request rapid answers to clinical or public health questions. To save time, personnel, and financial resources, rapid reviews streamline the methodological steps of the systematic review process. We aimed to explore the validity of a rapid review approach that combines a substantially abbreviated literature search with a single-reviewer screening of abstracts and full texts using three case studies.MethodsWe used a convenience sample of three ongoing Cochrane reviews as reference standards. Two reviews addressed oncological topics and one addressed a public health topic. For each of the three topics, three reviewers screened the literature independently. Our primary outcome was the change in conclusions between the rapid reviews and the respective Cochrane reviews. In case the rapid approach missed studies, we recalculated the meta-analyses for the main outcomes and asked Cochrane review authors if the new body of evidence would change their original conclusion compared with the reference standards. Additionally, we assessed the sensitivity of the rapid review approach compared with the results of the original Cochrane reviews.ResultsFor the two oncological topics (case studies 1 and 2), the three rapid reviews each yielded the same conclusions as the Cochrane reviews. However, the authors would have had less certainty about their conclusion in case study 2. For case study 3, the public health topic, only one of the three rapid reviews led to the same conclusion as the Cochrane review. The other two rapid reviews provided insufficient information for the authors to draw conclusions. Using the rapid review approach, the sensitivity was 100% (3 of 3) for case study 1. For case study 2, the three rapid reviews identified 40% (4 of 10), 50% (5 of 10), and 60% (6 of 10) of the included studies, respectively; for case study 3, the respective numbers were 38% (8 of 21), 43% (9 of 21), and 48% (10 of 21).ConclusionsWithin the limitations of these case studies, a rapid review approach that combines abbreviated literature searches with single-reviewer screening may be feasible for focused clinical questions. For complex public health topics, sensitivity seems to be insufficient.

Dataset Information

Dear reviewers: Responses to common reviewer critiques about infant neuroimaging studies.

Publications

Dear reviewers: Responses to common reviewer critiques about infant neuroimaging studies.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets