On 2016 Jun 24, Maddalena Boccia commented:

On the behalf of all the authors, I must report that the paper refers to a study performed when no bug has yet been reported in GingerAle 2.1.1 and has been published online on Aprile 2015 (accepted on April 2nd 2015), well before the bug description. Thus, there is no way to avoid this referred bug. However, taking in to account the comment posted on Pubmed 1 week ago (we are sorry to see it only now, but we haven’t received any notification about this) about results showed in the present publication, we re-run the analyses with the GingerAle 2.3.6 version, using a cluster-level inference, that it is consider the most appropriate method for statistical inference in ALE meta-analysis at this moment (Eickhoff et al., In Press “Behavior, sensitivity, and power of activation likelihood estimation characterized by massive empirical simulation” NeuroImage). We find that the main corpus of results did not change and our main conclusion, that is that specific neural networks of brain areas underpin PTSD after different traumatic events and that these networks may be related to specific aspects of the traumatic events is undoubtedly valid. In order to clear any doubt, we are considering to report the results with the last GingerAle version in a Letter to Editor, a form of scientific communication which allows to properly comment any scientific doubt raised by a paper in a polite and data-founded/evidence-based way

On 2016 Jun 14, Christopher Tench commented:

The version of GingerALE (2.1.1) has a bug that results in false positive results. The results in this publication are not valid. There was a fix at version 2.3.3

On 2016 Jun 14, Christopher Tench commented:

The version of GingerALE (2.1.1) has a bug that results in false positive results. The results in this publication are not valid. There was a fix at version 2.3.3