ArticleEClinicalMedicine2025
Suicide mortality and suicidal ideation among patients with colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in EClinicalMedicine, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Receiving a cancer diagnosis is strongly associated with a higher risk of suicide. However, studies examining suicidality in patients with colorectal cancer show some inconsistencies, particularly concerning factors such as disease stage or specific diagnosis. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the association between colorectal cancer and suicide or suicidal ideation. EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Science Citation Index Expanded & Social Sciences Citation Index, CINAHL, and Google Scholar were searched from database inception to May 31, 2025. Eligible studies included longitudinal cohort or case-control designs involving patients with colorectal cancer aged ≥14 years. Control groups comprised individuals from the same population without cancer. Data were independently extracted by two researchers from published reports available in English or German. The primary outcome was suicide, defined as death from intentional self-harm; the secondary outcome was suicidal ideation, defined as non-fatal thoughts of suicide. We performed random-effects meta-analyses, assessing heterogeneity with Q and I Findings: Among 4,700 records screened, 44 studies met the inclusion criteria, encompassing at least 9,385,472 patients with colorectal cancer and 13,308 suicides. Of these, 34 studies reported Standardised Mortality Ratios (SMR; colorectal cancer patients: n = 8,251,924; suicides: n = 12,081) and were included in the meta-analysis. After excluding studies with potential overlap in patient populations, the primary analysis was based on nine independent studies including at least 1,204,072 individuals with colorectal cancer, of whom 2,731 died by suicide. For suicidal ideation, we report the results of five individual studies. All included studies met methodological quality criteria, with a Newcastle-Ottawa Scale score of ≥7. The findings indicate a significantly increased suicide risk for patients with colorectal cancer, with a pooled SMR of 1.40 (95% CI: 1.33-1.49, I Interpretation: Our results indicate the need for comprehensive psychological screening in patients with colorectal cancer, who show a substantially higher suicide risk than the general population. Particular attention should be given to vulnerable subgroups, including those with metastatic disease, younger patients, and those recently diagnosed. Implementing these results into clinical practice can help facilitate patient-centred, cost-effective psycho-oncological care. Notably, evidence from low- and middle-income countries remains scarce, and younger populations might be underrepresented, indicating that our results should be interpreted with caution for these groups. Funding: None.
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.