Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27285387›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2016

Meta-Analysis of Longitudinal Cohort Studies of Suicide Risk Assessment among Psychiatric Patients: Heterogeneity in Results and Lack of Improvement over Time.

Matthew Large, Muthusamy Kaneson, Nicholas Myles, Hannah Myles, Pramudie Gunaratne, Christopher Ryan

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 83 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
83citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–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

83 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Scapegoating in Healthcare: A Primitive Response to Tragedy.The International journal of social psychiatry · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Characterizing suicidal intent among suicidal adolescents: a systematic review.Child and adolescent psychiatry and mental health · 2026
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

23 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

6 authors.

Matthew LargeSchool of Psychiatry, University of New South Wales, Randwick, Australia.
Muthusamy KanesonFaculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Randwick, Australia.
Nicholas MylesThe Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Woodville South, Australia.
Hannah MylesDiscipline of Psychiatry, School of Medicine, The University of Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Pramudie GunaratnePrince of Wales Hospital, Randwick, Australia.
Christopher RyanDiscipline of Psychiatry and Centre for Values Ethics and the Law in Medicine, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveIt is widely assumed that the clinical care of psychiatric patients can be guided by estimates of suicide risk and by using patient characteristics to define a group of high-risk patients. However, the statistical strength and reliability of suicide risk categorization is unknown. Our objective was to investigate the odds of suicide in high-risk compared to lower-risk categories and the suicide rates in high-risk and lower-risk groups.

methodWe located longitudinal cohort studies where psychiatric patients or people who had made suicide attempts were stratified into high-risk and lower-risk groups for suicide with suicide mortality as the outcome by searching for peer reviewed publications indexed in PubMed or PsychINFO. Electronic searches were supplemented by hand searching of included studies and relevant review articles. Two authors independently extracted data regarding effect size, study population and study design from 53 samples of risk-assessed patients reported in 37 studies.

resultsThe pooled odds of suicide among high-risk patients compared to lower-risk patients calculated by random effects meta-analysis was of 4.84 (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 3.79-6.20). Between-study heterogeneity was very high (I2 = 93.3). There was no evidence that more recent studies had greater statistical strength than older studies. Over an average follow up period of 63 months the proportion of suicides among the high-risk patients was 5.5% and was 0.9% among lower-risk patients. The meta-analytically derived sensitivity and specificity of a high-risk categorization were 56% and 79% respectively. There was evidence of publication bias in favour of studies that inflated the pooled odds of suicide in high-risk patients.

conclusionsThe strength of suicide risk categorizations based on the presence of multiple risk factors does not greatly exceed the association between individual suicide risk factors and suicide. A statistically strong and reliable method to usefully distinguish patients with a high-risk of suicide remains elusive.

Indexed as

Cohort StudiesHumansLongitudinal StudiesMental DisordersReproducibility of ResultsRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsSuicidal IdeationSuicideSuicide, AttemptedSuicide PreventionTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID27285387
PMCPMC4902221

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.