SynthesisFrontiers in psychology2026
Assessing paedophilic sexual preferences in child sexual offenders using eye-tracking methods: an exploratory meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in psychology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Due to reliability issues associated with self-reported sexual interest in children among individuals with paedophilia convicted of child sexual offences (PCSO), more innovative assessment methods have been studied for years. One such method involves eye-tracking techniques, which can provide insights into (automatic) attentional processes that may reflect underlying deviant sexual preferences. The current exploratory meta-analysis aimed to evaluate whether eye-tracking measurements are associated with paedophilic sexual preferences by examining group-level differences between diagnosed individuals and comparison groups. A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar, up to January 18, 2026. Ten relevant publications were found. Due to data overlap, only five studies were included, yielding 12 effect sizes. No significant group differences were found for viewing time. However, PCSOs fixated faster on child stimuli compared to individuals convicted of adult sex offences, offenders, and individuals without clinical signs of paedophilia. Additionally, the results provided evidence that PCSOs preferred viewing child stimuli over adult stimuli. It is concluded that, although the results should be interpreted with caution, there is some evidence that eye-tracking techniques can be useful for distinguishing differences in paedophilic sexual preferences. However, more empirical research is needed to determine the value of eye-tracking techniques for clinical practice.
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.