ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025
Predictive validity of the SAD PERSONS and NO HOPE scales in a sample of suicide cases.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. 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.
- High SAD PERSONS scale scores are associated with subsequent psychiatric admission after suicide attempts: A single-center retrospective study.PCN reports : psychiatry and clinical neurosciences · 2026Article
- Inflammatory Biomarkers in Acute Suicidal Behaviors.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Suicide is a global public health issue necessitating evidence-based prevention strategies. Many individuals who die by suicide have had prior contact with healthcare services. Nearly half visit a primary care provider within a month before their death, and many visit emergency departments (EDs) frequently. Effective risk assessment in EDs is critical for suicide prevention but remains challenging. Inadequate risk assessments are a common error identified in suicide deaths. While clinical interviews are vital, risk assessment scales can support decision-making. The SAD PERSONS and NO HOPE scales are widely used but have limitations in predictive value. Materials and methods: A case-control study using psychological autopsy (PA) was conducted from 2006 to 2016. Data were collected from 662 individuals in southern Spain, including 487 suicide cases and 175 controls. PAs involved interviews with close relatives and were conducted by trained psychiatrists or psychologists. The SAD PERSONS and NO HOPE scales were utilised, and data were analysed using sensitivity, specificity, and logistic regression to develop an improved predictive model. Results: The SAD PERSONS scale showed high specificity but low sensitivity in predicting suicide risk. In the non-suicide group, 91.6% were classified as low risk. In the suicide group, nearly half were classified as low risk (49.6%). The modified SAD PERSONS scale showed similar results. The NO HOPE scale had low sensitivity but high specificity. An improved predictive model incorporating key variables from both scales demonstrated higher sensitivity (93.609%) and specificity (91.608%). Discussion: The SAD PERSONS scale has limitations in effectively predicting suicide risk, particularly due to its focus on non-modifiable factors. Adding variables from the NO HOPE scale improves predictive utility. Comprehensive clinical assessments, considering psychological, social, and environmental factors, are essential for accurate suicide risk evaluation and tailored intervention.
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.