Cited by 76Suicide and Self-Harm StudiesPsychiatric care and mental health servicesPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending

Suicide risk assessment among psychiatric inpatients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of high-risk categories

Large, M., Myles, N., Myles, H., Corderoy, A., Weiser, M., Davidson, M., Ryan, C. J.·2018·Psychological Medicine

Abstract

Background: The clinical care of psychiatric patients is often guided by perceptions of suicide risk. The aim of this study was to examine the methods and results of studies reporting high-risk models for inpatient suicide. Methods: We conducted a registered meta-analysis according to PRISMA guidelines. We searched for relevant peer-reviewed cohort and controlled studies indexed in Medline, EMBASE and PsychINFO. Results: The pooled odds ratio (OR) among 18 studies reporting high-risk models for inpatient suicide was 7.1 [95% confidence interval (CI) 4.2–12.2]. Between-study heterogeneity in ORs was very high (range 0–94.8, first quartile 3.4, median 8.8, third quartile 26.1, prediction interval 0.80–63.1,I2= 88.1%). The meta-analytically derived sensitivity was 53.1% (95% CI 38.2–67.5%,I2= 95.9%) and specificity was 84.2% (95% CI 71.6–91.9%,I2= 99.9%) with an associated meta-analytic area under the curve of 0.83. The positive predictive value of risk categorization among six cohort studies was 0.43% (95% CI 0.014–1.3%,I2= 95.9%). A history of suicidal behavior and depressive symptoms or affective disorder was included in the majority of high-risk models. Conclusions: Despite the strength of the pooled association between high-risk categorization and suicide, the very high degree of observed heterogeneity indicates uncertainty about our ability to meaningfully distinguish inpatients according to suicide risk. The limited sensitivity and low positive predictive value of risk categorization suggest that suicide risk models are not a suitable basis for clinical decisions in inpatient settings.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0033291717002537

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • Digital technologies for workforce training and monitoring of care include natural language processing of the services as they are delivered, and automatic feedback on adherence to quality indicators or indicators of individual improvement.

    “Digital technologies for workforce training 631 and monitoring of care include natural language processing of the services as they are delivered, and automatic feedback on adherence to quality indicators or indicators of individual improvement.”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 49 · Cited by 76

Authors
Large, M., Myles, N., Myles, H., Corderoy, A., Weiser, M., Davidson, M., & Ryan, C. J.
Affiliations
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
  • Queen Elizabeth Hospital (AU)
  • Adelaide University (AU)
  • The University of Notre Dame Australia (AU)
  • Tel Aviv University (IL)
  • University of Nicosia (CY)
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
Corresponding author
Large, M.
Venue
Psychological Medicine
Published
2017-09-06
Volume
48
Issue
7
Pages
1119-1127
ISSN
  • 0033-2917 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8978
OpenAlex
W2752429071
Cited by
76
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 5
FWCI
1.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Suicide and Self-Harm Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychiatric care and mental health services
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Keywords
suicide risk assessment, psychiatric inpatients, inpatient suicide, risk classification, depressive symptoms, mood disorders, sensitivity and specificity, positive predictive value, clinical decision-making
MeSH terms
Depression, Humans, Inpatients, Risk Factors, Suicide, Risk Assessment, Mood Disorders

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