Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35601888›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in digital health2022

Don't Miss the Moment: A Systematic Review of Ecological Momentary Assessment in Suicide Research.

Liia Kivelä, Willem A J van der Does, Harriëtte Riese, Niki Antypa

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in digital health, 2022. 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 73 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
73citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
20.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

73 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 120 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Predicting Next-Day Passive Suicidal Ideation in At-Risk Youth.Suicide & life-threatening behavior · 2026
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

13 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Liia KiveläDepartment of Clinical Psychology, Institute of Psychology, Leiden University, Leiden, Netherlands.
Willem A J van der DoesDepartment of Clinical Psychology, Institute of Psychology, Leiden University, Leiden, Netherlands.
Harriëtte RieseDepartment of Psychiatry, The Interdisciplinary Center Psychopathology and Emotion Regulation (ICPE), Universitair Medisch Centrum Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.
Niki AntypaDepartment of Clinical Psychology, Institute of Psychology, Leiden University, Leiden, Netherlands.
Leiden University · NLUniversity Medical Center Groningen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Suicide and suicide-related behaviors are prevalent yet notoriously difficult to predict. Specifically, short-term predictors and correlates of suicide risk remain largely unknown. Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) may be used to assess how suicidal thoughts and behaviors (STBs) unfold in real-world contexts. We conducted a systematic literature review of EMA studies in suicide research to assess (1) how EMA has been utilized in the study of STBs (i.e., methodology, findings), and (2) the feasibility, validity and safety of EMA in the study of STBs. We identified 45 articles, detailing 23 studies. Studies mainly focused on examining how known longitudinal predictors of suicidal ideation perform within shorter (hourly, daily) time frames. Recent studies have explored the prospects of digital phenotyping of individuals with suicidal ideation. The results indicate that suicidal ideation fluctuates substantially over time (hours, days), and that individuals with higher mean ideation also have more fluctuations. Higher suicidal ideation instability may represent a phenotypic indicator for increased suicide risk. Few studies succeeded in establishing prospective predictors of suicidal ideation beyond prior ideation itself. Some studies show negative affect, hopelessness and burdensomeness to predict increased ideation within-day, and sleep characteristics to impact next-day ideation. The feasibility of EMA is encouraging: agreement to participate in EMA research was moderate to high (median = 77%), and compliance rates similar to those in other clinical samples (median response rate = 70%). More individuals reported suicidal ideation through EMA than traditional (retrospective) self-report measures. Regarding safety, no evidence was found of systematic reactivity of mood or suicidal ideation to repeated assessments of STBs. In conclusion, suicidal ideation can fluctuate substantially over short periods of time, and EMA is a suitable method for capturing these fluctuations. Some specific predictors of subsequent ideation have been identified, but these findings warrant further replication. While repeated EMA assessments do not appear to result in systematic reactivity in STBs, participant burden and safety remains a consideration when studying high-risk populations. Considerations for designing and reporting on EMA studies in suicide research are discussed.

Indexed as

ambulatory assessmentelectronic diaryexperience sampling methodsuicidal ideationsuicide attempt

Identifiers

PMID35601888
PMCPMC9120419
OpenAlexW4229037311

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.