ArticleBMJ mental health2026
External validation, recalibration and updating of the OxSATS risk model for suicide after self-harm in England.
Article in BMJ mental health, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundExternal validations of existing risk models are efficient steps towards potential implementation, avoiding the need to develop new models. However, validation in new clinical settings poses several challenges.
objectiveTo externally validate the OxSATS tool using data from the Oxford Monitoring System for Self-harm in England. OxSATS is a validated tool to predict suicide after self-harm developed using Swedish population registers.
methodsWe selected episodes of self-harm (International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision codes X60-X84; Y10-Y34) by individuals who presented to a large regional hospital between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2018, and were followed up until 31 December 2019. We applied the OxSATS tool to estimate each individual's suicide risk within 12 months after their index self-harm. We assessed model performance using discrimination (Harrell's concordance index (c-index)) and calibration measures (calibration plot and the observed-to-expected events ratio (O:E)). We assessed the effects of missing predictors on calibration and subsequently recalibrated the model.
findingsWe identified 16 130 individuals who presented to hospital with self-harm, of whom 106 (0.7%) died by suicide in the 12-month follow-up period. The OxSATS model showed good discrimination in external validation (c-index 0.73, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.79). Recalibration was required because initial calibration reflected a lower outcome rate in the new data. After recalibration, calibration performance was excellent (O:E 1.00, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.25).
conclusionsDespite differences in clinical services and outcome ascertainment, suicide risk models can maintain good predictive performance in new settings. However, recalibration should be considered when applying prediction models in new settings, and the impact of missing predictors should be assessed using sensitivity analyses. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: OxSATS may help clinicians assess suicide risk after self-harm by providing structured and transparent estimates as part of a comprehensive clinical assessment. Structured risk assessment tools may support identification of individuals who could benefit from additional risk management procedures, such as closer monitoring and follow-up or referral to specialist services, particularly in settings with limited access to such services.
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.