ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2023
Is It Correct to Consider Caustic Ingestion as a Nonviolent Method of Suicide? A Retrospective Analysis and Psychological Considerations.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mood disorders and suicide: pilot study on postmortem toxicologic evidence and adherence to psychiatric therapy by determining blood levels of medications.International journal of legal medicine · 2025Article
- Assessing the Risk Factors of Violent and Non-violent Suicide Attempt Methods: A Population-based Cross-sectional Study.Iranian journal of medical sciences · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSuicide methods chosen by victims are particularly critical in suicide risk research. To differentiate suicide deaths, it is usual to categorize them as violent and nonviolent depending on the detrimental method chosen by the victims. Caustic ingestion, for example, is traditionally considered as a nonviolent suicide method. It results in severe consequences for the human body and it is associated with high levels of lethality.
methodsIn this study, we retrospectively analyzed suicides that occurred between 1993 and 2021 in Milan (Italy) and that underwent autopsy. We compared a sample of 40 victims that ingested caustic substances with a sample of 460 victims of other chemical ingestion, and a sample of 3962 victims from violent suicide. Univariate analyses and univariate logistic regression models were performed. Suicides from caustic poisoning were significantly older, had a higher mean number of diseases and were more affected by psychiatric diseases compared to other chemical ingestion victims. By contrast, caustic suicides, compared to violent suicides, had a more balanced gender ratio, a higher mean number of diseases, were more affected by psychiatric diseases, had a higher rate of complex suicides (more than one modality), and had victims who died more frequently inside instead of outside. In logistic regression models, age was the only feature differentiating caustic from other chemical ingestion suicides while the features differentiating caustic from violent suicides were gender, mean number of diseases and suicide place.
conclusionsSuicides by caustic ingestion showed substantial differences compared to violent suicides, with a higher severe profile. However, some differences were reported comparing caustic ingestion to other chemical ingestion as well. Thus, we argue whether it is more appropriate to differentiate the suicidal ingestion of caustics from both violent and nonviolent suicide methods.
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.