ReviewJournal of the Royal Society of Medicine2007
Policy on the prevention of suicidal behaviour; one treatment for all may be an unrealistic expectation.
Review in Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Medicolegal reports in asylum applications: a framework for addressing the practical and ethical challenges.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2010Review
- The p4 screener: evaluation of a brief measure for assessing potential suicide risk in 2 randomized effectiveness trials of primary care and oncology patients.Primary care companion to the Journal of clinical psychiatry · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the absence of clear guidelines on suicide prevention there is a pressing need to translate existing and future evidence into policy. Suicide is a behaviour, not a diagnosis, and has diverse underlying pathologies. Interventions have differential effects in specific risk groups, which may include paradoxical increases in risk. For these reasons, policy makers may need to abandon the goal of one treatment for all and focus on the distinct subgroups of patients at risk when selecting, evaluating and implementing preventive interventions. This has implications for the design of future research, but has the potential to increase the utility and cost-effectiveness of the data available, thereby benefiting policy makers, clinicians and patients.
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.