SynthesisBMC psychiatry2025
Efficacy of internet-based interventions to reduce suicidal ideation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Unveiling the Potential of Diagnostic Classification Models for Precise Diagnosis in Emotional-Behavioral Disorders: Evidence from Iran.Child psychiatry and human development · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSuicide prevention remains a critical public health priority, with internet-based interventions offering accessible and scalable solutions. These digital approaches provide anonymity and flexibility, potentially improving mental health outcomes. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the efficacy of such interventions in reducing suicidal ideation and to explore sources of heterogeneity through subgroup analysis and meta-regression.
methodsThis systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. A comprehensive search of PubMed, ProQuest, PsycINFO, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, and CINAHL was performed from inception to March 2025 using MeSH terms and Boolean operators. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials involving adults (≥ 18 years) with suicidal ideation or attempts. Internet-based interventions (guided, unguided, and hybrid approaches) were compared to various control conditions. Primary outcomes focused on reductions in suicidal ideation, with secondary outcomes assessing mental health improvements. Given substantial heterogeneity observed across studies, we employed narrative synthesis as the primary approach, supplemented by subgroup analyses and meta-regression to explore sources of variability. Statistical analyses were conducted using STATA 17.0.
resultsThe systematic review included 18 studies from 10 countries. Substantial heterogeneity precluded a meaningful overall meta analysis. Narrative synthesis revealed mixed findings, with some studies showing promising results for guided interventions while others demonstrated minimal effects. Subgroup analyses and meta regression examining age, gender, intervention type, and digital platform revealed no significant moderators of efficacy. The high heterogeneity (I² >78% across most comparisons) suggests important unexplained variability in intervention effects. Limited data on suicide attempts precluded robust analysis of this outcome.
conclusionInternet-based interventions show inconsistent effects on reducing suicidal ideation, with substantial heterogeneity across studies. While some guided approaches demonstrate potential, the evidence remains inconclusive due to methodological limitations and variability in intervention characteristics. Future research should prioritize standardized outcome measures, long-term follow-ups, and tailored intervention approaches to better understand which components work for specific populations. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.