Comparison of clinical and research assessments of diagnosis, suicide attempt history and suicidal ideation in major depression
Open accessAbstract
A number of studies have compared clinical diagnostic and suicide assessments to standardized schedules to determine the level of agreement. At best there is only moderate diagnostic agreement, but most often it is fair. There are only a few reports comparing clinical assessments for suicidal behavior with standardized schedules. We present the data from 201 inpatient admissions for major depression that had both clinical diagnostic and suicide evaluations by PGYII resident physicians under supervision from an attending psychiatrist and research evaluations using standardized schedules for diagnosis and suicide by at least masters' level clinicians. There was moderate agreement for diagnosis and suicide attempt history but only fair agreement for the presence of suicidal ideation using Cohen's kappa statistic. In regards to suicide attempt history a cross-tabulation demonstrated that 18.7% of those patients identified by a research schedule as having a past suicide attempt were not identified as such by the clinicians. A cross-tabulation demonstrated that 29.7% of those patients identified by structured interview as having suicidal ideation were not identified as such by the clinician. There was a statistically significant difference in the level of agreement for suicide attempt history between clinical and research assessments for attempts within a year of admission and those beyond a year. These findings suggest the importance of adding a structured diagnostic and suicide assessment to routine clinical care to improve the reliability and validity of clinical evaluations and to inform treatment planning to benefit our patients.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
To date, the field has lacked a single standard measure that assesses both suicidal ideation and behavior.
“However, to date, the field has lacked a single standard measure that assesses both suicidal ideation and behavior (10).”
From The Columbia–Suicide Severity Rating Scale: Initial Validity and Internal Consistency Findings From Three Multisite Studies With Adolescents and Adults (2011) · cites this paper as [10]
The Objective says that no standard clinical suicide assessment exists. The Research Assessment Instruments section uses separate instruments for suicide attempts and suicidal ideation, but the paper does not establish the broader claim that the field lacked a single standard measure covering both ideation and behavior. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredA structured assessment of suicidal ideation and behavior significantly improves identification of high-risk patients relative to a routine clinical interview.
“Moreover, a structured assessment of suicidal ideation and behavior significantly improves identification of high-risk patients relative to a routine clinical interview (10).”
From The Columbia–Suicide Severity Rating Scale: Initial Validity and Internal Consistency Findings From Three Multisite Studies With Adolescents and Adults (2011) · cites this paper as [10]
The Results and Discussion (pages unavailable) report that semi-structured research assessments identified suicide-attempt histories and suicidal ideation missed by routine clinical assessments in depressed inpatients. The authors say structured assessments *would* improve identification, but this comparison did not test their implementation in routine care or establish that the improvement was statistically significant. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 45 · Cited by 44
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Spitzer RL Willimas JBW Gibbon M First MB Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-II-R Personality Disorder (SCID-II) 1990 American Psychiatric Press Washington DC
- Authors
- Bongiovi-Garcia, M. E., Merville, J., Almeida, M. G., Burke, A., Ellis, S., Stanley, B. H., Posner, K., Mann, J. J., & Oquendo, M. A.
- Affiliations
- New York State Psychiatric Institute (US)
- Corresponding author
- Bongiovi-Garcia, Mary E.
- Venue
- Journal of Affective Disorders
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2009-05
- Volume
- 115
- Issue
- 1-2
- Pages
- 183-188
- ISSN
- 0165-0327 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC3785082
- OpenAlex
- W2145870570
- Cited by
- 44
- References
- 45
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 2.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Journal of Affective Disorders (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (P30 AA15630)
- National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH059710, R01MH048514, P50-MH62185, MH 59710, 2R01 MH48514, P50MH062185)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Suicide and Self-Harm Studies
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
- Keywords
- major depressive disorder, suicide attempt history, suicidal ideation, suicide risk assessment, structured diagnostic interview, inpatient psychiatric hospitalization, diagnostic reliability
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Bipolar Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder, Depressive Disorder, Major, Diagnosis, Differential, Female, Humans, Internship and Residency, Interview, Psychological, Male, Middle Aged, Personality Tests, Psychiatry, Psychometrics, Research Personnel, Risk Factors, Suicide, Attempted, Reproducibility of Results, Observer Variation, Young Adult
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review