ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2025
Do health records data accurately identify repeat self-harm after emergency department visits?
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective –: Evaluate how often encounter diagnoses of self-harm soon after an emergency department visit for self-harm represent new self-harm events. Methods –: Electronic health records (EHR) and insurance claims data from a large integrated health system identified emergency department encounters for injury or poisoning coded as self-harm and then selected those with another encounter diagnosis of self-harm occurring within 91 days. Review of clinical text for these pairs of encounters examined whether the subsequent self-harm diagnosis represented a distinct new self-harm event vs. a repeat. Results –: Of 121 pairs of encounters with relevant clinical text available for review, records indicated a distinct repeat self-harm event for 50 (41%, 95% CI 33%-49%). The proportion confirmed as distinct new events ranged from 3% (95% CI 0%-10%) for self-harm diagnoses the following day to 50% (95% CI 19%-81%) for diagnoses 2 to 7 days later to 100% (95% CI 92%-100%) for diagnoses 8 to 91 days later. The proportion confirmed as distinct, new events did not vary by healthcare setting of recording for the subsequent diagnosis (inpatient, emergency department, other outpatient) or similarity of injury or poisoning type between the two events. Conclusions –: Health systems, researchers, and public health agencies using insurance claims or EHR diagnoses to identify early recurrence of self-harm should be cautious regarding diagnoses that appear to represent early repetition of self-harm. Self-harm diagnoses the day after an emergency department self-harm visit rarely represent a distinct new event, while diagnoses recorded more than a week later usually do.
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.