A consensus-based transparency checklist

Aczél, Balázs; Szászi, Barnabás; Sarafoglou, Alexandra; Kekecs, Zoltán; Kucharský, Šimon; Benjamin, Daniel J.; Chambers, Chris; Fisher, Agneta; Gelman, Andrew; Gernsbacher, Morton Ann; Ioannidis, John P. A.; Johnson, Eric L.; Jonas, Kai J.; Kousta, Stavroula; Lilienfeld, Scott O.; Lindsay, D. Stephen; Morey, Candice C.; Munafò, Marcus R.; Newell, Ben R.; Pashler, Harold; Shanks, David R.; Simons, Daniel J.; Wicherts, Jelte M.; Albarracín, Dolores; Anderson, Nicole; Antonakis, John; Arkes, Hal R.; Back, Mitja D.; Banks, George C.; Beevers, Christopher G.; Bennett, Andrew A.; Bleidorn, Wiebke; Boyer, Ty W.; Cacciari, Cristina; Carter, Alice S.; Cesario, Joseph; Clifton, Charles; Conroy, Ronán; Cortese, M. E.; Cosci, Fiammetta; Cowan, Nelson; Crawford, Jarret T.; Crone, Eveline A.; Curtin, John J.; Engle, Randall W.; Farrell, Simon; Fearon, Pasco; Fichman, Mark; Frankenhuis, Willem E.; Freund, Alexandra M.; Gaskell, M. Gareth; Giner‐Sorolla, Roger; Green, Don P.; Greene, Robert L.; Harlow, Lisa L.; Guardia, Fernando Hoces de la; Isaacowitz, Derek M.; Kolodner, Janet L.; Lieberman, Debra; Logan, Gordon D.; Mendes, Wendy Berry; Moersdorf, Lea; Nyhan, Brendan; Pollack, Jeffrey M.; Sullivan, Christopher J.; Vazire, Simine; Wagenmakers, Eric Jan

doi:10.1038/s41562-019-0772-6

Cited by 113 publications

(101 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In general, the field will benefit from adopting more rigorous research and reporting practices as encouraged by a recent consensus (Aczel et al, 2019;Ros et al, 2020) to improve the likelihood of replicability and reproducibility (Mehler, 2019). These measures include sampling plans that are ideally based on adequate power analyses which render both positive and negative findings more informative (Mehler et al, 2019).…”

Section: The Potential Of Fnirs For Neurofeedback Research -Future DImentioning

confidence: 99%

The potential of functional near-infrared spectroscopy-based neurofeedback – a systematic review and recommendations for best practice

Mehler¹,

Lührs²,

Thibault³

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The effects of electroencephalography (EEG) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI)-neurofeedback on brain activation and behaviors have been studied extensively in the past. More recently, researchers have begun to investigate the effects of functional near-infrared spectroscopy-based neurofeedback (fNIRS-neurofeedback). FNIRS is a functional neuroimaging technique based on brain hemodynamics, which is easy to use, portable, inexpensive, and has reduced sensitivity to movement artifacts.Method: We provide the first systematic review and database of fNIRS-neurofeedback studies, synthesizing findings from 22 peer-reviewed studies (including a total of N=441 participants; 337 healthy, 104 patients). We (1) give a comprehensive overview of how fNIRS-neurofeedback training protocols were implemented, (2) review the online signal-processing methods used, (3) evaluate the quality of studies using pre-set methodological and reporting quality criteria and also present statistical sensitivity/power analyses, (4) investigate the effectiveness of fNIRS-neurofeedback in modulating brain activation, and (5) review its effectiveness in changing behavior in healthy and pathological populations. Results and discussion: (1-2) Published studies are heterogeneous (e.g., neurofeedback targets, investigated populations, applied training protocols, and methods). (3) Large randomized controlled trials are still lacking. In view of the novelty of the field, the quality of the published studies is moderate. We identified room for improvement in reporting important information and statistical power to detect realistic effects. (4) Several studies show that people can regulate hemodynamic signals from cortical brain regions with fNIRS-neurofeedback and (5) these studies indicate the feasibility of modulating motor control and prefrontal brain functioning in healthy participants and ameliorating symptoms in clinical populations (stroke, ADHD, autism, and social anxiety). However, valid conclusions about specificity or potential clinical utility are premature. Conclusion: Due to the advantages of practicability and relatively low cost, fNIRS-neurofeedback might provide a suitable and powerful alternative to EEG and fMRI neurofeedback and has great potential for clinical translation of neurofeedback. Together with more rigorous research and reporting practices, further methodological improvements may lead to a more solid understanding of fNIRS-neurofeedback. Future research will benefit from exploiting the advantages of fNIRS, which offers unique opportunities for neurofeedback research.

show abstract

Section: The Potential Of Fnirs For Neurofeedback Research -Future DImentioning

confidence: 99%

The potential of functional near-infrared spectroscopy-based neurofeedback – a systematic review and recommendations for best practice

Mehler¹,

Lührs²,

Thibault³

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The selection and wording of general, methodological and reproducibility indicators will be influenced by recommendations from relevant articles on research transparency and reproducibility 4 5 7 8 29 35–41. The standardised data extraction form will include the following:…”

Section: Methods and Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Reproducible research practices, openness and transparency in health economic evaluations: study protocol for a cross-sectional comparative analysis

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionThere has been a growing awareness of the need for rigorously and transparent reported health research, to ensure the reproducibility of studies by future researchers. Health economic evaluations, the comparative analysis of alternative interventions in terms of their costs and consequences, have been promoted as an important tool to inform decision-making. The objective of this study will be to investigate the extent to which articles of economic evaluations of healthcare interventions indexed in MEDLINE incorporate research practices that promote transparency, openness and reproducibility.Methods and analysisThis is the study protocol for a cross-sectional comparative analysis. We registered the study protocol within the Open Science Framework (osf.io/gzaxr). We will evaluate a random sample of 600 cost-effectiveness analysis publications, a specific form of health economic evaluations, indexed in MEDLINE during 2012 (n=200), 2019 (n=200) and 2022 (n=200). We will include published papers written in English reporting an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in terms of costs per life years gained, quality-adjusted life years and/or disability-adjusted life years. Screening and selection of articles will be conducted by at least two researchers. Reproducible research practices, openness and transparency in each article will be extracted using a standardised data extraction form by multiple researchers, with a 33% random sample (n=200) extracted in duplicate. Information on general, methodological and reproducibility items will be reported, stratified by year, citation of the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement and journal. Risk ratios with 95% CIs will be calculated to represent changes in reporting between 2012–2019 and 2019–2022.Ethics and disseminationDue to the nature of the proposed study, no ethical approval will be required. All data will be deposited in a cross-disciplinary public repository. It is anticipated the study findings could be relevant to a variety of audiences. Study findings will be disseminated at scientific conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals.

show abstract

“…Transparent reporting of methodology and results is crucial for critical evaluation of findings, for replication efforts, and for the accumulation of knowledge. We would encourage researchers in this field to embrace tools such as transparency checklists (e.g., Aczel et al, 2019). Third, the adoption of Open Science practices such as pre-registration and sharing of data, materials, and coding schemes, would bring enormous benefits to the field.…”

Section: Risk Of Biasmentioning

confidence: 99%

A meta-analytic review of the Self-Administered Interview: Quantity and accuracy of details reported on initial and subsequent retrieval attempts

Horry¹,

Hughes²,

Sharma³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Self-Administered Interview (SAI©) is designed to elicit detailed witness reportsin the aftermath of incidents. In two sets of meta-analyses, we compared the number of correct details reported, the number of incorrect details reported, and the accuracy of reports provided by witnesses in initial reports (SAI© vs. other reporting formats) and in subsequent accounts (initial SAI© vs. no initial SAI©). The number of comparisons ranged from 15 to 19, (N = 722 to 977). For initial accounts, the SAI© was associated with more correct details and more incorrect details than other reporting formats; accuracy was slightly lower for the SAI© than for other reporting formats. Subsequent accounts were more detailed and accurate for witnesses who had completed an initial SAI© than for those who had not. The SAI© is an effective tool for capturing detailed initial accounts and for preserving witness memory until a formal interview can be conducted.

show abstract

A consensus-based transparency checklist

Cited by 113 publications

References 10 publications

The potential of functional near-infrared spectroscopy-based neurofeedback – a systematic review and recommendations for best practice

The potential of functional near-infrared spectroscopy-based neurofeedback – a systematic review and recommendations for best practice

Reproducible research practices, openness and transparency in health economic evaluations: study protocol for a cross-sectional comparative analysis

A meta-analytic review of the Self-Administered Interview: Quantity and accuracy of details reported on initial and subsequent retrieval attempts

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About