Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31494608›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2019

Predicting future self-harm or suicide in adolescents: a systematic review of risk assessment scales/tools.

Isobel Marion Harris, Sophie Beese, David Moore

Registry-linked trialAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07120477 (Esketamine Versus Crisis Response Planning Versus Enhanced Treatment as Usual for Suicide Prevention), which is not on this map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–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.

NCT07120477 phase4suspendednot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

Esketamine Versus Crisis Response Planning Versus Enhanced Treatment as Usual for Suicide Prevention: A Pragmatic Randomized Trial in a Brazilian Municipality (SAVE)

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of Sao PauloRan2026 to 2029Enrolled468ConditionsSuicide Prevention, Ketamine, Crisis Response PlanArmsIntravenous Esketamine, Crisis Response Planning intervention (structures safety planning)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
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

3 authors.

Isobel Marion HarrisInstitute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK i.m.harris@bham.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-8125-3832
Sophie BeeseInstitute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
David MooreInstitute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis systematic review aimed to evaluate the ability of risk tools to predict the future episodes of suicide/self-harm in adolescents.

designSystematic review. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO were searched from inception to 3 March 2018. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Cohort studies, case-control studies and randomised controlled trials of adolescents aged 10-25 who had undergone risk assessment in a clinical setting following an episode of self-harm were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Data were grouped by tool and narrative synthesis undertaken, with studies appraised using a checklist combining the QUIPS (Quality In Prognosis Studies) and QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies) tools.

resultsOf the 17 137 articles initially identified, 11 studies evaluating 10 separate tools were included. The studies varied in setting, population and outcome measure. The majority of the studies were rated as having an unclear risk of bias, and meta-analysis was not possible due to high variability between studies.The ability of the tools to correctly identify those adolescents going on to make a self-harm/suicide attempt ranged from 27% (95% CI 10.7% to 50.2%) to 95.8% (95% CI 78.9% to 99.9%). A variety of metrics were provided for 1-10 points increases in various tools, for example, odds and HRs.

conclusionsThis systematic review is the first to explore the use of assessment tools in adolescents. The predictive ability of these tools varies greatly. No single tool is suitable for predicting a higher risk of suicide or self-harm in adolescent populations. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017058686.

Indexed as

Self-Injurious BehaviorSuicideAdolescentAdolescent BehaviorHumansPredictive Value of TestsPsychology, AdolescentRisk AssessmentChild & adolescent psychiatryPredictionPSYCHIATRYRisk assessmentSuicide & self-harm

Identifiers

PMID31494608
PMCPMC6731844

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.