ArticleJCPP advances2026
Who and what retrospective risk assessments miss: Examining retrospective denial of momentary suicidal ideation in adolescents.
Article in JCPP advances, 2026. 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.
- Suicide safety plan engagement: Temporal dynamics and momentary predictors.Journal of affective disorders · 2026Article
- Expanding the Measurement of Suicidal Desire: The Creation and Evaluation of the Suicidal Desire Variability Scale in Three Adult Samples.Journal of psychopathology and behavioral assessment · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Emerging evidence indicates that real-time assessments such as ecological momentary assessment (EMA) detect individuals experiencing suicidal ideation (SI) who go undetected by retrospective assessments. However, it remains unclear for whom and why such discrepancies occur. Few prior studies accounted for method variance (e.g., survey vs. interview), and no studies have comprehensively examined which individual characteristics differentiate those with and without discrepant reports across EMA and retrospective measures. The current study aimed to address these gaps by examining discrepancies in SI endorsement across EMA and two forms of retrospective measures (survey, interview), as well as comparing those with and without discrepant reports on demographic, clinical, and EMA-based variables. Methods: Eighty community-based adolescents completed a baseline online survey assessing demographic and clinical characteristics, followed by a 14-day EMA assessing momentary SI (5x/day). At the conclusion of the EMA period, adolescents retrospectively reported their SI during the past 2 weeks via a survey and an interview. Results: Of 48 adolescents who endorsed some SI during EMA, 35%-41% retrospectively denied having experienced SI during the EMA period on the follow-up survey and interview. Adolescents with retrospective denial had a lower likelihood of lifetime SI ( Conclusion: Real-time monitoring detects more adolescents experiencing SI than retrospective assessments, particularly those with lower clinical severity. Therefore, real-time monitoring has the potential to facilitate early interventions by identifying adolescents who are not yet as advanced in the suicide risk trajectory but are at risk of further escalation.
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.