Cited by 64Suicide and Self-Harm StudiesNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics

Decision-making in suicidal behavior: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Sastre-Buades, Aina, Alacreu-Crespo, Adrián, Courtet, Philippe, Baca-Garcia, Enrique, Barrigon, Maria Luisa·2021·Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews

Abstract

Impaired decision-making (DM) is well-known in suicidal behavior (SB). We aimed to review the evidence on DM and its mediating factors in SB and perform a meta-analysis on DM assessed using the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT). We conducted a search on databases of papers published on DM and SB up to 2020: 46 studies were included in the systematic review, and 18 in the meta-analysis. For meta-analysis, we compared DM performance between suicide attempters (SAs) and patients (PCs) or healthy controls (HCs). The systematic review showed that SAs have greater difficulties in all DM domains. The meta-analysis found worse IGT performance among SAs in comparison with PCs and HCs. A meta-regression did not find differences for age, gender, psychiatric disorder, and clinical status. Our findings indicate that SAs exhibited deficits in DM under conditions of risk though not ambiguity. Worse DM was independent of age, gender, psychiatric disorder, and suggested that DM impairment could be considered a cognitive trait of suicidal vulnerability, a risk factor and an attribute of SAs.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.10.005

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Acute suicidality might interfere with decision-making.

    “Moreover, suicidality might complicate MAID assessment: the fluctuating nature of suicidality13 may hamper assessment of the consistency of the death wish,14 and acute suicidality might interfere with decision-making.15”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sastre-Buades, A., Alacreu-Crespo, A., Courtet, P., Baca-Garcia, E., & Barrigon, M. L.
Affiliations
  • Hospital Son Llatzer (ES)
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
Venue
Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-12
Volume
131
Pages
642-662
ISSN
0149-7634 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3202269980
Cited by
64
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 7
FWCI
1.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
  • Zaguan (University of Zaragoza Repository) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Suicide and Self-Harm Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Keywords
decision-making, suicidal behavior, suicide attempts, Iowa Gambling Task, risk assessment, ambiguity, impulsivity, mental illness
MeSH terms
Decision Making, Gambling, Humans, Neuropsychological Tests, Suicide, Attempted, Suicidal Ideation

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