ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2023
Validation of the German Version of the P4 Suicidality Tool.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and validation of the SuPr-10 questionnaire for suicidality assessment in primary care patients with depressive symptoms.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Trauma-focused or non-trauma-focused? Treatment preferences and expectancies among veterans with co-occurring posttraumatic stress disorder and substance use disorder.Psychological trauma : theory, research, practice and policy · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
For general practitioners (GPs), it may be challenging to assess suicidal ideation (SI) in patients. Although promising instruments exist for the use in primary care, only a few have been validated in German. The objectives of this study were to examine the validity of the brief P4 screener for assessing SI in a cross-sectional study including outpatients. Inclusion criteria were a PHQ-9 score ≥ 10 or an affirmative answer to its SI item. Construct validity of the P4 was examined by comparison with the four-item Suicide Behaviors Questionnaire-Revised (SBQ-R), the PHQ-9 (convergent), and the positive mental health (PMH) scale (divergent). The study sample included 223 patients (mean age 47.61 ± 15 years; 61.9% women) from 20 primary care practices (104 patients) and 10 psychiatric/psychotherapeutic clinics (119 patients). The first three items of the P4 correlate positively with most of the four items of the reference standard SBQ-R (convergent validity); the fourth item of the P4 (preventive factors) correlates significantly with the PMH scale. The most common preventive factor (67%) is family or friends. The German P4 screener can be used to assess SI in outpatient care. It explores preventive or protective factors of suicide, which may support the GP's decision on treatment. We recommend a further clinical interview for patients flagged by P4 assessment in order to more formally assess suicidal risk.
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.