= −53), remained in the data set, because we could not clarify the exact position. The overall number of mask outliers was below the critical limit of 3% (see User Manual for GingerALE 2.3, https://brainmap.org/ale/). No sample overlap was identified within the studies eligible for inclusion and therefore data from each study was managed independently in the analysis. We combined the results from all contrasts (AUD < HC and AUD > HC), since ALE is testing independently from the direction of the effects [28]. If a sufficiently large number of individual studies was identified that used either DTI or VBM methods, appropriate subgroup analyses were performed in the course of the analysis.Table 1Demographic and clinical sample characteristics of the studies included in the ALE meta-analysis.#SourceAUD patientsHealthy controlsn (Fem.)Age, M (SD)Diagnosis (Diagnosis Criteria)Duration of AUD in years M (SD)Duration of Abstinence d/w/mo, M (SD)n (Fem.)Age, M (SD)1Asensio et al. [20]24 (0)35.62 (4.81)Alcohol abuse (DSM-IV)4.71 (2.93)40.88 d (29.07)24 (0)31.91 (9.34)2Chanraud et al. [50]26 (0)47.7 (7.1)Alcohol dependence (DSM-IV)8 (6.3)26.4 w (29.0)24 (0)45 (6.72)3Chumin et al. [51]38 (7)38.6 (8.1)Alcohol dependence (DSM-IV)n. a.n. a.19 (3)37.8 (8.6)4Crespi et al. [45]22 (9)45.56 (7.99)Alcohol dependence (DSM-IV)10.11 (6.56)*>10 d18 (7)45.11 (8.69)5Demirakca et al. [14]50 (23)46.6 (8.2)Alcohol dependence (DSM-IV)12.4 (7.4)16.5
