RT Journal
A1 Holmes WC, Slap GB
T1 INterpretation of research on sexual abuse of boys—reply
JF JAMA
JO JAMA
YR 1999
FD June 16
VO 281
IS 23
SP 2185
OP 2185
DO 10-1001/pubs.JAMA-ISSN-0098-7484-281-23-jac90005
UL http://dx.doi.org/10-1001/pubs.JAMA-ISSN-0098-7484-281-23-jac90005
AB 
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.