Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35608866›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2021

Pharmacological interventions for self-harm in adults.

Katrina G Witt, Sarah E Hetrick, Gowri Rajaram, Philip Hazell, Tatiana L Taylor Salisbury, Ellen Townsend, Keith Hawton

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

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2021. 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 7 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Psychosocial interventions for self-harm in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  3. Interventions for self-harm in children and adolescents.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  4. Pharmacological interventions for self-harm in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. 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

7 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.

Katrina G WittOrygen, Parkville, Melbourne, Australia.
Sarah E HetrickDepartment of Psychological Medicine, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Gowri RajaramOrygen, Parkville, Melbourne, Australia.
Philip HazellSpeciality of Psychiatry, University of Sydney School of Medicine, Sydney, Australia.
Tatiana L Taylor SalisburyHealth Service and Population Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Ellen TownsendSelf-Harm Research Group, School of Psychology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Keith HawtonCentre for Suicide Research, Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
University of Melbourne · AUKing's College London · GBUniversity of Auckland · NZUniversity of Nottingham · GBUniversity of Oxford · GBUniversity of Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSelf-harm (SH; intentional self-poisoning or self-injury regardless of degree of suicidal intent or other types of motivation) is a growing problem in most countries, often repeated, and associated with suicide. Evidence assessing the effectiveness of pharmacological agents and/or natural products in the treatment of SH is lacking, especially when compared with the evidence for psychosocial interventions. This review therefore updates a previous Cochrane Review (last published in 2015) on the role of pharmacological interventions for SH in adults.

objectivesTo assess the effects of pharmacological agents or natural products for SH compared to comparison types of treatment (e.g. placebo or alternative pharmacological treatment) for adults (aged 18 years or older) who engage in SH. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Specialised Register, the Cochrane Library (Central Register of Controlled Trials [CENTRAL] and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews [CDSR]), together with MEDLINE. Ovid Embase and PsycINFO (to 4 July 2020). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing pharmacological agents or natural products with placebo/alternative pharmacological treatment in individuals with a recent (within six months of trial entry) episode of SH resulting in presentation to hospital or clinical services. The primary outcome was the occurrence of a repeated episode of SH over a maximum follow-up period of two years. Secondary outcomes included treatment acceptability, treatment adherence, depression, hopelessness, general functioning, social functioning, suicidal ideation, and suicide. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We independently selected trials, extracted data, and appraised trial quality. For binary outcomes, we calculated odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence internals (CIs). For continuous outcomes we calculated the mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI. The overall certainty of evidence for the primary outcome (i.e. repetition of SH at post-intervention) was appraised for each intervention using the GRADE approach. MAIN

resultsWe included data from seven trials with a total of 574 participants. Participants in these trials were predominately female (63.5%) with a mean age of 35.3 years (standard deviation (SD) 3.1 years). It is uncertain if newer generation antidepressants reduce repetition of SH compared to placebo (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.19; N = 129; k = 2; very low-certainty evidence). There may be a lower rate of SH repetition for antipsychotics (21%) as compared to placebo (75%) (OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.50; N = 30; k = 1; low-certainty evidence). However, there was no evidence of a difference between antipsychotics compared to another comparator drug/dose for repetition of SH (OR 1.51, 95% CI 0.50 to 4.58; N = 53; k = 1; low-certainty evidence). There was also no evidence of a difference for mood stabilisers compared to placebo for repetition of SH (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.95; N = 167; k = 1; very low-certainty evidence), or for natural products compared to placebo for repetition of SH (OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.38 to 4.62; N = 49; k = 1; lo- certainty) evidence. AUTHORS'

conclusionsGiven the low or very low quality of the available evidence, and the small number of trials identified, there is only uncertain evidence regarding pharmacological interventions in patients who engage in SH. More and larger trials of pharmacotherapy are required, preferably using newer agents. These might include evaluation of newer atypical antipsychotics. Further work should also include evaluation of adverse effects of pharmacological agents. Other research could include evaluation of combined pharmacotherapy and psychological treatment.

Indexed as

Antipsychotic AgentsBiological ProductsSelf-Injurious BehaviorAdultAntidepressive AgentsFemaleHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSystematic Reviews as TopicAntidepressive AgentsAntipsychotic AgentsBiological Products

Identifiers

PMID35608866
PMCPMC8094615
OpenAlexW4211183781

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.