Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29064611›Full record

SynthesisDepression and anxiety2018

Understanding suicide risk within the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) framework: A meta-analytic review.

Catherine R Glenn, Evan M Kleiman, Christine B Cha, Charlene A Deming, Joseph C Franklin, Matthew K Nock

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Depression and anxiety, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 63 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
63citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

63 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Genetics of suicide ideation. A role for inflammation and neuroplasticity?European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience · 2024
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

3 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.

Catherine R GlennDepartment of Clinical and Social Sciences in Psychology, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2497-6000
Evan M KleimanDepartment of Psychology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8002-1167
Christine B ChaDepartment of Psychology, Columbia University Teachers College, New York City, NY, USA.
Charlene A DemingDepartment of Psychology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Joseph C FranklinDepartment of Psychology, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA.
Matthew K NockDepartment of Psychology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA.

Funding

NIDA NIH HHS HHSN271201500513PNIMH NIH HHS L30 MH101616
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe field is in need of novel and transdiagnostic risk factors for suicide. The National Institute of Mental Health's Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) provides a framework that may help advance research on suicidal behavior.

methodWe conducted a meta-analytic review of existing prospective risk and protective factors for suicidal thoughts and behaviors (ideation, attempts, and deaths) that fall within one of the five RDoC domains or relate to a prominent suicide theory. Predictors were selected from a database of 4,082 prospective risk and protective factors for suicide outcomes.

resultsA total of 460 predictors met inclusion criteria for this meta-analytic review and most examined risk (vs. protective) factors for suicidal thoughts and behaviors. The overall effect of risk factors was statistically significant, but relatively small, in predicting suicide ideation (weighted mean odds ratio: wOR = 1.72; 95% CI: 1.59-1.87), suicide attempt (wOR = 1.66 [1.57-1.76), and suicide death (wOR = 1.41 [1.24-1.60]). Across all suicide outcomes, most risk factors related to the Negative Valence Systems domain, although effect sizes were of similar magnitude across RDoC domains.

conclusionsThis study demonstrated that the RDoC framework provides a novel and promising approach to suicide research; however, relatively few studies of suicidal behavior fit within this framework. Future studies must go beyond the "usual suspects" of suicide risk factors (e.g., mental disorders, sociodemographics) to understand the processes that combine to lead to this deadly outcome.

Indexed as

Mental DisordersSuicideHumansRisk Factorsmeta-analysisResearch Domain Criteriarisk factorsuicidesuicide attempts

Identifiers

PMID29064611
PMCPMC5760472

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.