Cited by 201Suicide and Self-Harm StudiesNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesPersonality Disorders and Psychopathology

A behavioral and cognitive neuroscience perspective on impulsivity, suicide, and non-suicidal self-injury: Meta-analysis and recommendations for future research

Open access
Liu, Richard T., Trout, Zoë M., Hernandez, Evelyn M., Cheek, Shayna M., Gerlus, Nimesha·2017·Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews

Abstract

HighlightsMeta‐analysis of behavioral and cognitive impulsivity in relation to self‐injury.Behavioral impulsivity was associated with non‐suicidal self‐injury (NSSI).Behavioral and cognitive impulsivity were associated with suicide attempts.Link with behavioral impulsivity was stronger for past‐month than lifetime attempts.Studies with clinically significant NSSI and longitudinal research are needed. Abstract We conducted a meta‐analysis of neurobehavioral and neurocognitive indices of impulsivity in relation to suicidal thoughts and behaviors, as well as non‐suicidal self‐injury (NSSI). In our systematic review, 34 studies were identified and submitted to a random‐effects meta‐analysis. A small pooled effect size was observed for the association between behavioral impulsivity and NSSI (OR = 1.34, p < 0.05). A small‐to‐medium pooled effect size (OR = 2.23, p < 0.001) was found for the association between behavioral impulsivity and suicide attempts, and a medium‐to‐large pooled effect size was observed for this outcome in relation to cognitive impulsivity (OR = 3.14, p < 0.01). Length of time between suicide attempt and impulsivity assessment moderated the strength of the relation between impulsivity and attempts, with a large pooled effect size (OR = 5.54, p < 0.001) evident when the suicide attempt occurred within a month of behavioral impulsivity assessment. Studies of clinically significant NSSI temporally proximal to impulsivity assessment are needed. Longitudinal research is required to clarify the prognostic value of behavioral and cognitive impulsivity for short‐term risk for self‐harm.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.09.019

Cites

98 of 98 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Different facets of executive control have been associated with suicide risk.

    “Finally, different facets of executive control have, in turn, been associated with suicide risk (Liu et al., 2017; Miranda et al., 2012).”
  • DBT combines principles from behaviorism, Zen, and dialectics that aim to help clients improve their emotional and cognitive regulation to overcome problems, including intense mood change, impulsivity, and loneliness.

    “DBT combines principles from behaviorism, Zen, and dialectics [10] that aim to help clients improve their emotional and cognitive regulation to overcome problems, including intense mood change [11,12], impulsivity [13,14], and loneliness [15].”

    From A mobile health intervention (LifeBuoy App) to help young people manage suicidal thoughts: protocol for a mixed-methods randomized controlled trial (2020) · cites this paper as [14]

    The citation is attached to impulsivity, in the context of problems DBT aims to address. The Introduction discusses forms of impulsivity, and the Discussion considers tDCS as a possible intervention, but the passages found when searching for DBT and dialectical behavior therapy do not address whether DBT helps clients manage impulsivity. No page numbers were available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.73)

    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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Liu, R. T., Trout, Z. M., Hernandez, E. M., Cheek, S. M., & Gerlus, N.
Affiliations
  • Brown University (US)
  • Duke University (US)
Corresponding author
Liu, Richard T.
Venue
Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-12
Volume
83
Pages
440-450
ISSN
0149-7634 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2755382287
Cited by
201
References
98
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 10
FWCI
2.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH101138, R21MH112055)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Suicide and Self-Harm Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
Keywords
impulsivity, suicide, non-suicidal self-injury, behavioral impulsivity, cognitive impulsivity, suicide attempts, suicidal ideation, self-harm
MeSH terms
Cognitive Neuroscience, Humans, Impulsive Behavior, Suicide, Self-Injurious Behavior

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