ArticlePloS one2020
Reanalysis of the Bridge et al. study of suicide following release of 13 Reasons Why.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Systematic Review and Meta-analysis: International Prevalence of Suicidal Ideation and Attempt in Youth.Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry · 2023Pooled it
- Towards the Influence of Media on Suicidality: A Systematic Review of Netflix's 'Thirteen Reasons Why'.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Pooled it
- Quantitative Methods to Detect Suicide and Self-Harm Clusters: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Pooled it
- Challenges with using popular entertainment to address mental health: a content analysis of Netflix seriesFrontiers in psychiatry · 2023Article
- Investigating Viewership of Season 3 of "13 Reasons Why" and the Mental Wellness of Adolescents: Partially Randomized Preference Trial.JMIR mental health · 2021Article
- Applying Behavioral Economics to Improve Adolescent and Young Adult Health: A Developmentally-Sensitive Approach.The Journal of adolescent health : official publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine · 2021Review
- Systematic review and meta-analyses of suicidal outcomes following fictional portrayals of suicide and suicide attempt in entertainment media.EClinicalMedicine · 2021Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bridge et al. recently presented a time series analysis of suicide rates in the US following the release of the 2017 Netflix series "13 Reasons Why." Their analysis found a powerful effect of the show on boys ages 10-17 for nine months after the show was released in April 2017. I questioned this finding on two grounds. First, contagion would be expected to be stronger for girls than boys for this story, and second their analysis did not take into account strong secular trends in suicide, especially in boys from 2016 to 2017. I reanalyzed their data using a simple auto-regression model that tested for changes in rates after removing auto-correlation and national trends in suicide. I found that the increase for boys observed by Bridge et al. in April was no greater than the increase observed during the prior month before the show was released. There were also no effects in later months of that year. For girls, I found a small but nonsignificant increase in suicide in April that was unique to that month, potentially consistent with a combined protective and harmful effect of the show. In total, I conclude that it is difficult to attribute harmful effects of the show using aggregate rates of monthly suicide rates. More fine-grained analyses at the weekly level may be more valid but only after controlling for secular changes in suicide that have been particularly strong since 2008 in the US.
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.