A Methodological Evaluation of Meta-Analyses in tDCS - Motor Learning Research
Alsalti, T.; Hussey, I.; Elson, M.; Krause, R.; Pohl, S.
Show abstract
With transcranial direct-current stimulations (tDCS) rising popularity both in motor learning research and as a commercial product, it is becoming increasingly important that the quality of evidence on its effectiveness be evaluated. Special attention should be paid to meta-analyses, as they usually have a large impact on research and clinical practice. The aim of this study was to evaluate the methodological quality of meta-analyses estimating the effect of tDCS on motor learning with respect to reproducibility as the main focus, and reporting quality and publication bias control as secondary aspects. The three meta-analyses we reviewed largely adhered to PRISMA reporting guidelines and reported the primary effect sizes and sampling variances / confidence intervals they calculated, enabling successful reproductions of pooled effect size estimates. However, akin to previous meta-research reviews with similar aims, we found the methods and results sections of the meta-analyses to be severely underreported, which compromises the ability to judge the soundness of the methodological procedure adopted as well as its reproducibility. While publication bias detection methods were applied, the approaches chosen do not allow for well informed decisions about the presence or extent of publication bias. These results reemphasise the need to transparently report methods in meta-analyses and to meticulously evaluate their quality before and after publication.
Matching journals
The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- The use of the Registered Reports format for publication of randomized clinical trials: a cross-sectional study 94%
- Large language models for conducting systematic reviews: on the rise, but not yet ready for use – a scoping review 94%
- The impact of retracted randomised controlled trials on systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines: a meta-epidemiological study 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Fast and frugal decision tree for the rapid critical appraisal of systematic reviews 96%
- Evaluation of statistical methods used to meta-analyse results from interrupted time series studies: a simulation study 95%
- Exploring the potential of Claude 2 for risk of bias assessment: Using a large language model to assess randomized controlled trials with RoB 2 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Identifying regions in prefrontal cortex related to working memory improvement: a novel meta-analytic method using electric field modeling 90%
- The central autonomic system revisited - convergent evidence for a regulatory role of the insular and midcingulate cortex from neuroimaging meta-analyses 90%
- Mapping social reward and punishment processing in the human brain: A voxel-based meta-analysis of neuroimaging findings using the Social Incentive Delay task 89%
Similar papers in this journal
- Self-determination theory in physiotherapy practice: A rapid review of randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews 89%
- Comparing electromyography, accelerometry, and visual inspection to assess the resting motor threshold for transcranial magnetic stimulation 88%
- Enhancing Statistical Power While Maintaining Small Sample Sizes in Behavioral Neuroscience Experiments Evaluating Success Rates 87%
Similar papers in this journal
- Development of a consensus extension of the estimands framework for cluster randomised trials (CRT-estimands): results from an international Delphi study 92%
- Trials that turn from retrospectively registered to prospectively registered: A cohort study of ‘retroactively prospective’ clinical trial registration using history data 92%
- Machine learning for randomised controlled trials: identifying treatment effect heterogeneity with strict control of type I error 91%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.