ArticleJournal of psychiatric research2023
Are suicide risk scales sensitive to change? A scoping review.
Article in Journal of psychiatric research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04446468 (Prevention of Suicide in Veterans Through Brief Intervention and Contact), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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.
Prevention of Suicide in Veterans Through Brief Intervention and Contact (VA-BIC)
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Correlations between problematic internet use and suicidal behavior among Chinese adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2024Pooled it
- Conceptualization and development of the Maryland suicide data warehouse to improve mortality prediction.JAMIA open · 2026Article
- A call to action: informing research and practice in suicide prevention among individuals with psychosis.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2024Article
- Validity and reliability of a Chinese language suicide screening questionnaire-observer rating (CL-SSQ-OR) assessment for children/adolescents.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionClinician- or self-administered scales are frequently used to assist in detecting risk of death by suicide and to determine the effectiveness of interventions. No recent review studies have examined whether these scales are sensitive to change. We conducted a scoping review to identify suicide risk scales that are sensitive to change. MATERIAL AND
methodsWe searched Medline and Excerpta Medica Database from inception through March 17, 2022, to identify randomized trials, pooled analysis, quasi-experimental studies, and cohort studies reporting on sensitivity to change of suicide risk scales. We assessed sensitivity to change by examining internal and external responsiveness. Internal responsiveness evaluates whether the scale measures changes in suicide-related symptoms in response to an intervention while external responsiveness assess whether changes in the scale correspond to changes in risk of suicide. We summarized findings across studies using descriptive analysis.
resultsAmong 38 eligible scales, we identified 27 scales that included items that were modifiable to change. However, only 7 scales had been studied to determine their sensitivity to change based on internal or external responsiveness. While the results of studies suggested that 6 scales have internal responsiveness, none of the included studies confirmed that scales have external responsiveness. DISCUSSION: A few suicide risk scales are internally responsive and may be useful in a clinical or research setting. It is unclear, however, whether changes in scores correspond to an actual change in suicide risk. Future research should confirm the external responsiveness of scales using robust metrics including suicide mortality.
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.