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

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...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Jay P Singh, Martin Grann, Seena Fazel
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2013
Materias:	Medicine R Science Q
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/4b5fd7b7773546fe91d2b853ef1c85ba
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:4b5fd7b7773546fe91d2b853ef1c85ba
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:4b5fd7b7773546fe91d2b853ef1c85ba2021-11-18T08:57:25ZAuthorship bias in violence risk assessment? A systematic review and meta-analysis.1932-620310.1371/journal.pone.0072484https://doaj.org/article/4b5fd7b7773546fe91d2b853ef1c85ba2013-01-01T00:00:00Zhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/24023744/?tool=EBIhttps://doaj.org/toc/1932-6203Various 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.Jay P SinghMartin GrannSeena FazelPublic Library of Science (PLoS)articleMedicineRScienceQENPLoS ONE, Vol 8, Iss 9, p e72484 (2013)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Medicine R Science Q
spellingShingle	Medicine R Science Q Jay P Singh Martin Grann Seena Fazel Authorship bias in violence risk assessment? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
description	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.
format	article
author	Jay P Singh Martin Grann Seena Fazel
author_facet	Jay P Singh Martin Grann Seena Fazel
author_sort	Jay P Singh
title	Authorship bias in violence risk assessment? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
title_short	Authorship bias in violence risk assessment? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
title_full	Authorship bias in violence risk assessment? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
title_fullStr	Authorship bias in violence risk assessment? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
title_full_unstemmed	Authorship bias in violence risk assessment? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
title_sort	authorship bias in violence risk assessment? a systematic review and meta-analysis.
publisher	Public Library of Science (PLoS)
publishDate	2013
url	https://doaj.org/article/4b5fd7b7773546fe91d2b853ef1c85ba
work_keys_str_mv	AT jaypsingh authorshipbiasinviolenceriskassessmentasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT martingrann authorshipbiasinviolenceriskassessmentasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT seenafazel authorshipbiasinviolenceriskassessmentasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
_version_	1718421079946428416

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

Ejemplares similares