Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42178980›Full record

ArticleEuropean psychiatry : the journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists2026

Improving risk assessment in forensic mental health: Temporal validation and clinical refinement of the FoVOx risk tool.

Lenka Sivak, Jonas Forsman, Amir Sariaslan, Jari Tiihonen, Seena Fazel

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in European psychiatry : the journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Lenka SivakDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, https://ror.org/056d84691Karolinska Institutet, Sweden.ORCID 0009-0002-7399-8011
Jonas ForsmanDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, https://ror.org/056d84691Karolinska Institutet, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-8473-6327
Amir SariaslanDepartment of Psychiatry, https://ror.org/052gg0110University of Oxford, UK and Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust.ORCID 0000-0002-6151-3278
Jari TiihonenDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, https://ror.org/056d84691Karolinska Institutet, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-0400-6798
Seena FazelDepartment of Psychiatry, https://ror.org/052gg0110University of Oxford, UK and Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust.ORCID 0000-0002-5383-5365

Funding

NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre BRC-1215-20005Stiftelsen Professor Bror Gadelius Minnesfond
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundForensic psychiatric services are expanding in many countries, and discharging patients from secure hospitals relies on accurate estimates of risk of adverse outcomes. Novel evidence-based tools for estimating one key risk, violent reoffending, have been developed in recent years. We aimed to externally validate one new tool, FoVOx, in forensic psychiatric patients sentenced to treatment and to develop an updated model (FoVOx2), incorporating additional clinical predictors.

methodsUsing Swedish national registers, we conducted a temporal external validation of FoVOx by examining 767 patients discharged between 2014 and 2023. For the FoVOx2 cohort, 906 patients discharged between 2008 and 2023 were followed up, and additional predictors tested. The outcome was violent reconviction within 12 or 24 months. Model performance was evaluated using Harrell's C-index, area under the receiver operating characteristics curves (AUCs), calibration, and classification metrics at predefined thresholds.

resultsIn temporal validation, FoVOx showed moderate discrimination (AUCs 0.69 and 0.71; C-index = 0.69) and acceptable overall accuracy (Brier <0.11). Calibration was generally good, with mild overestimation at the highest predicted risks (>20%) at 12 months and slight underprediction at 24 months. The updated FoVOx2 model incorporated novel predictors, including clozapine treatment and additional diagnostic categories. It was associated with improved performance (AUCs 0.77; optimism-corrected C-index = 0.72; Brier 0.06 and 0.09) and demonstrated good calibration (intercept ≈ 0; slopes 1.03 and 1.05).

conclusionsUpdating risk assessment tools with additional clinical factors can lead to incremental improvement in model performance. Implementing tools should consider clinical utility and impact as next steps.

Indexed as

Forensic PsychiatryMental DisordersRegistriesViolenceAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRisk AssessmentSwedenforensic psychiatryprediction modelrisk assessmentviolence

Identifiers

PMID42178980
PMCPMC13276727

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.