Dataset Information

Authorship bias in violence risk assessment? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: Various financial and non-financial conflicts of interests have been shown to influence the reporting of research findings, particularly in clinical medicine. In this study, we examine whether this extends to prognostic instruments designed to assess violence risk. Such instruments have increasingly become a routine part of clinical practice in mental health and criminal justice settings. The present meta-analysis investigated whether an authorship effect exists in the violence risk assessment literature by comparing predictive accuracy outcomes in studies where the individuals who designed these instruments were study authors with independent investigations. A systematic search from 1966 to 2011 was conducted using PsycINFO, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and US National Criminal Justice Reference Service Abstracts to identify predictive validity studies for the nine most commonly used risk assessment tools. Tabular data from 83 studies comprising 104 samples was collected, information on two-thirds of which was received directly from study authors for the review. Random effects subgroup analysis and metaregression were used to explore evidence of an authorship effect. We found a substantial and statistically significant authorship effect. Overall, studies authored by tool designers reported predictive validity findings around two times higher those of investigations reported by independent authors (DOR=6.22 [95% CI=4.68-8.26] in designers' studies vs. DOR=3.08 [95% CI=2.45-3.88] in independent studies). As there was evidence of an authorship effect, we also examined disclosure rates. None of the 25 studies where tool designers or translators were also study authors published a conflict of interest statement to that effect, despite a number of journals requiring that potential conflicts be disclosed. The field of risk assessment would benefit from routine disclosure and registration of research studies. The extent to which similar conflict of interests exists in those developing risk assessment guidelines and providing expert testimony needs clarification.

SUBMITTER: Singh JP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3759386 | biostudies-literature | 2013

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Authorship bias in violence risk assessment? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Singh Jay P JP Grann Martin M Fazel Seena S

PloS one 20130902 9

Various financial and non-financial conflicts of interests have been shown to influence the reporting of research findings, particularly in clinical medicine. In this study, we examine whether this extends to prognostic instruments designed to assess violence risk. Such instruments have increasingly become a routine part of clinical practice in mental health and criminal justice settings. The present meta-analysis investigated whether an authorship effect exists in the violence risk assessment l ...[more]

PMID: 24023744

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAlthough structured tools have been widely used to predict violence risk in specialist mental health settings, there is uncertainty about the extent and quality of evidence of their predictive performance. We aimed to systematically review the predictive performance of tools used to assess violence risk in forensic mental health, where they are routinely administered.MethodsIn our systematic review and meta-analysis, we followed PRISMA guidelines and searched four databases (PsycINFO, Embase, Medline, and Global Health) from database inception to Nov 1, 2022, to identify studies examining the predictive performance of risk assessment tools in people discharged from forensic (secure) mental health hospitals. Systematic and narrative reviews were excluded from the review. Performance measures and descriptive statistics were extracted from published reports. A quality assessment was performed for each study using the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. Meta-analysis was conducted on the performance of instruments that were independently externally validated with a sample size greater than 100. The study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42022304716.FindingsWe conducted a systematic review of 50 eligible publications, assessing the predictive performance of 36 tools, providing data for 10 460 participants (88% men, 12% women; median age [from 47 studies] was 35 years, IQR 33-38) from 12 different countries. Post-discharge interpersonal violence and crime was most often measured by new criminal offences or recidivism (47 [94%] of 50 studies); only three studies used informant or self-report data on physical aggression or violent behaviour. Overall, the predictive performance of risk assessment tools was mixed. Most studies reported one discrimination metric, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC); other key performance measures such as calibration, sensitivity, and specificity were not presented. Most studies had a high risk of bias (49 [98%] of 50), partly due to poor analytical approaches. A meta-analysis was conducted for violent recidivism on 29 independent external validations from 19 studies with at least 100 patients. Pooled AUCs for predicting violent outcomes ranged from 0·72 (0·65-0·79; I2=0%) for H10, to 0·69 for the Historical Clinical Risk Management-20 version 2 (95% CI 0·65-0·72; I2=0%) and Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (0·63-0·75; I2=0%), to 0·64 for the Static-99 (0·53-0·73; I2=45%).InterpretationCurrent violence risk assessment tools in forensic mental health have mixed evidence of predictive performance. Forensic mental health services should review their use of current risk assessment tools and consider implementing those with higher-quality evidence in support.FundingWellcome Trust.

Project description:BACKGROUND AND AIMS:Violent behaviour by forensic psychiatric inpatients is common. We aimed to systematically review the performance of structured risk assessment tools for violence in these settings. METHODS:The nine most commonly used violence risk assessment instruments used in psychiatric hospitals were examined. A systematic search of five databases (CINAHL, Embase, Global Health, PsycINFO and PubMed) was conducted to identify studies examining the predictive accuracy of these tools in forensic psychiatric inpatient settings. Risk assessment instruments were separated into those designed for imminent (within 24 hours) violence prediction and those designed for longer-term prediction. A range of accuracy measures and descriptive variables were extracted. A quality assessment was performed for each eligible study using the QUADAS-2. Summary performance measures (sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, diagnostic odds ratio, and area under the curve value) and HSROC curves were produced. In addition, meta-regression analyses investigated study and sample effects on tool performance. RESULTS:Fifty-two eligible publications were identified, of which 43 provided information on tool accuracy in the form of AUC statistics. These provided data on 78 individual samples, with information on 6,840 patients. Of these, 35 samples (3,306 patients from 19 publications) provided data on all performance measures. The median AUC value for the wider group of 78 samples was higher for imminent tools (AUC 0.83; IQR: 0.71-0.85) compared with longer-term tools (AUC 0.68; IQR: 0.62-0.75). Other performance measures indicated variable accuracy for imminent and longer-term tools. Meta-regression indicated that no study or sample-related characteristics were associated with between-study differences in AUCs. INTERPRETATION:The performance of current tools in predicting risk of violence beyond the first few days is variable, and the selection of which tool to use in clinical practice should consider accuracy estimates. For more imminent violence, however, there is evidence in support of brief scalable assessment tools.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough expert opinion has asserted that there is an increased risk of violence in individuals with schizophrenia and other psychoses, there is substantial heterogeneity between studies reporting risk of violence, and uncertainty over the causes of this heterogeneity. We undertook a systematic review of studies that report on associations between violence and schizophrenia and other psychoses. In addition, we conducted a systematic review of investigations that reported on risk of homicide in individuals with schizophrenia and other psychoses.Methods and findingsBibliographic databases and reference lists were searched from 1970 to February 2009 for studies that reported on risks of interpersonal violence and/or violent criminality in individuals with schizophrenia and other psychoses compared with general population samples. These data were meta-analysed and odds ratios (ORs) were pooled using random-effects models. Ten demographic and clinical variables were extracted from each study to test for any observed heterogeneity in the risk estimates. We identified 20 individual studies reporting data from 18,423 individuals with schizophrenia and other psychoses. In men, ORs for the comparison of violence in those with schizophrenia and other psychoses with those without mental disorders varied from 1 to 7 with substantial heterogeneity (I(2) = 86%). In women, ORs ranged from 4 to 29 with substantial heterogeneity (I(2) = 85%). The effect of comorbid substance abuse was marked with the random-effects ORs of 2.1 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.7-2.7) without comorbidity, and an OR of 8.9 (95% CI 5.4-14.7) with comorbidity (p<0.001 on metaregression). Risk estimates of violence in individuals with substance abuse (but without psychosis) were similar to those in individuals with psychosis with substance abuse comorbidity, and higher than all studies with psychosis irrespective of comorbidity. Choice of outcome measure, whether the sample was diagnosed with schizophrenia or with nonschizophrenic psychoses, study location, or study period were not significantly associated with risk estimates on subgroup or metaregression analysis. Further research is necessary to establish whether longitudinal designs were associated with lower risk estimates. The risk for homicide was increased in individuals with psychosis (with and without comorbid substance abuse) compared with general population controls (random-effects OR = 19.5, 95% CI 14.7-25.8).ConclusionsSchizophrenia and other psychoses are associated with violence and violent offending, particularly homicide. However, most of the excess risk appears to be mediated by substance abuse comorbidity. The risk in these patients with comorbidity is similar to that for substance abuse without psychosis. Public health strategies for violence reduction could consider focusing on the primary and secondary prevention of substance abuse. Please see later in the article for Editors' Summary.

Project description:BackgroundPrevious reviews on risk and protective factors for violence in psychosis have produced contrasting findings. There is therefore a need to clarify the direction and strength of association of risk and protective factors for violent outcomes in individuals with psychosis.MethodWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis using 6 electronic databases (CINAHL, EBSCO, EMBASE, Global Health, PsycINFO, PUBMED) and Google Scholar. Studies were identified that reported factors associated with violence in adults diagnosed, using DSM or ICD criteria, with schizophrenia and other psychoses. We considered non-English language studies and dissertations. Risk and protective factors were meta-analysed if reported in three or more primary studies. Meta-regression examined sources of heterogeneity. A novel meta-epidemiological approach was used to group similar risk factors into one of 10 domains. Sub-group analyses were then used to investigate whether risk domains differed for studies reporting severe violence (rather than aggression or hostility) and studies based in inpatient (rather than outpatient) settings.FindingsThere were 110 eligible studies reporting on 45,533 individuals, 8,439 (18.5%) of whom were violent. A total of 39,995 (87.8%) were diagnosed with schizophrenia, 209 (0.4%) were diagnosed with bipolar disorder, and 5,329 (11.8%) were diagnosed with other psychoses. Dynamic (or modifiable) risk factors included hostile behaviour, recent drug misuse, non-adherence with psychological therapies (p values<0.001), higher poor impulse control scores, recent substance misuse, recent alcohol misuse (p values<0.01), and non-adherence with medication (p value <0.05). We also examined a number of static factors, the strongest of which were criminal history factors. When restricting outcomes to severe violence, these associations did not change materially. In studies investigating inpatient violence, associations differed in strength but not direction.ConclusionCertain dynamic risk factors are strongly associated with increased violence risk in individuals with psychosis and their role in risk assessment and management warrants further examination.

Dataset Information

Authorship bias in violence risk assessment? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Publications

Authorship bias in violence risk assessment? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets