ReviewFrontiers in psychiatry2026
Challenges to court room mental health decision-making in the face of uncertainty.
Review in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mental health professionals are frequently faced with the challenge of not only having to make decisions that have far-reaching consequences for the individual being assessed, but having to do so with inevitable degrees of uncertainty. Acknowledging and attempting to quantify this uncertainty ought therefore to be central to such an endeavour but, we argue, it is insufficiently recognised by the professionals involved. Specifically, 'experts' who rely on scientific evidence in providing an opinion need to be aware of the challenges of applying such group data to an individual case. In this paper, first, we consider some criticisms of current practice in this respect. Second, we offer a rejoinder that considers the place of tacit knowledge in the clinical practice, the contribution of both Bayesian reasoning and an adapted epidemiological criteria for causal inference, all of which we believe would strengthen the provision of a forensic 'expert' opinion, in a courtroom setting.
Indexed as
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.