Margaret A.WinkerMD, Deputy EditorIndividualAuthorPhil B.FontanarosaMD, Interim CoeditorIndividualAuthor
In Reply: We agree with the
conjecture made by Dr Rind and colleagues that sequelae rates differ by
sample type. Clinical samples probably demonstrate more adverse health
states following sexual abuse than nonclinical samples. In fact, repeat
perusal of the studies informing the sequelae section of our article
indicates that base rates of outcomes do differ by sample type.
However, the rate increases we reported (comparing abused with
nonabused boys within sample type) do not. We avoided meta-analytic
assessment of studies on male sexual abuse due to the wide variability
in design rigor, abuse definitions, and data collection and analytic
methods. Meta-analysis is not appropriate when methodological rigor,
let alone the question asked, is so varied.
Holmes WC, Slap GB. Interpretation of Research on Sexual Abuse of Boys—Reply. JAMA. 1999;281(23):2185. doi:10-1001/pubs.JAMA-ISSN-0098-7484-281-23-jac90005
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: