ArticleInternational journal of forensic mental health2017
Commentary: Risk Assessment in the Age of Evidence-Based Practice and Policy.
Article in International journal of forensic mental health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- From risky individuals to risky systems: a conceptual framework for the next generation of forensic mental health research.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Article
- Using the VERA-2R, professional and organisational aspects.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2023Article
- Methodological limitations in the measurement and statistical modeling of violence among adults with mental illness.International journal of methods in psychiatric research · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Risk assessment has come to be recognized as a key component of evidence-based practice and policy in psychiatric and correctional agencies. At the same time, however, there is significant debate in scientific, policy, and public arenas regarding the role of risk assessment instruments in mental health and criminal justice decision-making, and questions regarding the level of evidence supporting their usefulness. It is in light of these conflicting realities that the current commentary considers Williams, Wormith, Bonta and Sitarenios' (2017) re-examination of the Singh, Grann, and Fazel (2011) meta-analysis and recommendations made in "The Use of Meta-Analysis to Compare and Select Offender Risk Instruments." Additional limitations in the extant risk assessment research are identified and their implications for evidence-based practice and policy are discussed.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.