Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42311566›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2026

Suicide risk assessment: clinical implications of the unpredictability of suicidal behavior.

Tobias Teismann, Wilco C Janssen, Henriëtte D Heering

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Tobias TeismannMental Health Research and Treatment Center, Faculty of Psychology, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
Wilco C Janssen113 Suicide Prevention, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Henriëtte D Heering113 Suicide Prevention, Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Risk assessment in the context of suicidal ideation and behavior cannot be conducted with certainty. Recent meta-analyses demonstrate that neither individual risk factors, composite risk scores, clinical judgment, nor adherence to theoretical models or artificial intelligence enables sufficiently accurate prediction of suicidal behavior. This raises the question of how clinicians should respond to the well-documented limitations in the precision of risk assessment. This article first reviews the current state of empirical evidence and subsequently reflects on the implications of these findings for clinical practice. Three alternative approaches to risk assessment are presented. Building on these, an integrated model for risk assessment is introduced in a practice-oriented manner.

Indexed as

needs-based approachrisk assessmentrisk-stratificationseverity-based approachsuicide

Identifiers

PMID42311566
PMCPMC13270292

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.