Cited by 361Suicide and Self-Harm StudiesHomicide, Infanticide, and Child AbusePsychiatric care and mental health services

Predicting suicidal behaviours using clinical instruments: Systematic review and meta-analysis of positive predictive values for risk scales

Open access
Carter, Gregory, Milner, Allison, McGill, Katie, Pirkis, Jane, Kapur, Nav, Spittal, Matthew J.·2017·British Journal of Psychiatry

Abstract

Background: Prediction of suicidal behaviour is an aspirational goal for clinicians and policy makers; with patients classified as ‘high risk’ to be preferentially allocated treatment. Clinical usefulness requires an adequate positive predictive value (PPV). Aims: To identify studies of predictive instruments and to calculate PPV estimates for suicidal behaviours. Method: A systematic review identified studies of predictive instruments. A series of meta-analyses produced pooled estimates of PPV for suicidal behaviours. Results: For all scales combined, the pooled PPVs were: suicide 5.5% (95% CI 3.9–7.9%), self-harm 26.3% (95% CI 21.8–31.3%) and self-harm plus suicide 35.9% (95% CI 25.8–47.4%). Subanalyses on self-harm found pooled PPVs of 16.1% (95% CI 11.3–22.3%) for high-quality studies, 32.5% (95% CI 26.1–39.6%) for hospital-treated self-harm and 26.8% (95% CI 19.5–35.6%) for psychiatric in-patients. Conclusions: No ‘high-risk’ classification was clinically useful. Prevalence imposes a ceiling on PPV. Treatment should reduce exposure to modifiable risk factors and offer effective interventions for selected subpopulations and unselected clinical populations.

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 · 10.1192/bjp.bp.116.182717

Cites

106 of 106 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?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [94]94. Guthrie E, Kapur N, Mackway-Jones K, Chew-Graham C, Moorey J, Mendel E, et al. Randomised controlled trial of brief psychological intervention after deliberate self poisoning. BMJ 2001; 323: 135-7.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Carter, G., Milner, A., McGill, K., Pirkis, J., Kapur, N., & Spittal, M. J.
Affiliations
Deakin University (AU)
Venue
British Journal of Psychiatry
Published
2017-06
Volume
210
Issue
6
Pages
387-395
ISSN
  • 0007-1250 (ISSN-L)
  • 1472-1465
OpenAlex
W2596790840
Cited by
361
References
106
Citations by year
2026: 41 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 39 · 2023: 38 · 2022: 49 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 48 · 2019: 39 · 2018: 35 · 2017: 13
FWCI
5.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The British Journal of Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Own your potential (DEAKIN) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • NOVA (University of Newcastle Australia) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Suicide and Self-Harm Studies
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Homicide, Infanticide, and Child Abuse
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychiatric care and mental health services
Keywords
suicidal behavior, suicide risk prediction, positive predictive value, risk assessment scale, self-harm, suicide, clinical utility, high-risk classification, psychiatric inpatients, modifiable risk factors
MeSH terms
Humans, Predictive Value of Tests, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Suicide, Suicide, Attempted, 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