Large Matthew, Kaneson Muthusamy, Myles Nicholas, Myles Hannah, Gunaratne Pramudie, Ryan Christopher
School of Psychiatry, University of New South Wales, Randwick, Australia.
Prince of Wales Hospital, Randwick, Australia.
PLoS One. 2016 Jun 10;11(6):e0156322. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0156322. eCollection 2016.
It is widely assumed that the clinical care of psychiatric patients can be guided by estimates of suicide risk and by using patient characteristics to define a group of high-risk patients. However, the statistical strength and reliability of suicide risk categorization is unknown. Our objective was to investigate the odds of suicide in high-risk compared to lower-risk categories and the suicide rates in high-risk and lower-risk groups.
We located longitudinal cohort studies where psychiatric patients or people who had made suicide attempts were stratified into high-risk and lower-risk groups for suicide with suicide mortality as the outcome by searching for peer reviewed publications indexed in PubMed or PsychINFO. Electronic searches were supplemented by hand searching of included studies and relevant review articles. Two authors independently extracted data regarding effect size, study population and study design from 53 samples of risk-assessed patients reported in 37 studies.
The pooled odds of suicide among high-risk patients compared to lower-risk patients calculated by random effects meta-analysis was of 4.84 (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 3.79-6.20). Between-study heterogeneity was very high (I2 = 93.3). There was no evidence that more recent studies had greater statistical strength than older studies. Over an average follow up period of 63 months the proportion of suicides among the high-risk patients was 5.5% and was 0.9% among lower-risk patients. The meta-analytically derived sensitivity and specificity of a high-risk categorization were 56% and 79% respectively. There was evidence of publication bias in favour of studies that inflated the pooled odds of suicide in high-risk patients.
The strength of suicide risk categorizations based on the presence of multiple risk factors does not greatly exceed the association between individual suicide risk factors and suicide. A statistically strong and reliable method to usefully distinguish patients with a high-risk of suicide remains elusive.
人们普遍认为,精神科患者的临床护理可以通过自杀风险评估以及利用患者特征来界定高危患者群体来加以指导。然而,自杀风险分类的统计学强度和可靠性尚不清楚。我们的目的是研究高危类别与低危类别相比的自杀几率,以及高危和低危群体的自杀率。
我们通过检索PubMed或PsychINFO索引的同行评审出版物,查找将精神科患者或有自杀未遂史的人分为自杀高危和低危组并以自杀死亡率为结局的纵向队列研究。电子检索辅以对纳入研究和相关综述文章的手工检索。两位作者独立从37项研究报告的53个风险评估患者样本中提取有关效应量、研究人群和研究设计的数据。
通过随机效应荟萃分析计算得出,高危患者与低危患者相比的合并自杀几率为4.84(95%置信区间(CI)3.79 - 6.20)。研究间异质性非常高(I² = 93.3)。没有证据表明近期研究比早期研究具有更强的统计学强度。在平均63个月的随访期内,高危患者中的自杀比例为5.5%,低危患者中的自杀比例为0.9%。高危分类经荟萃分析得出的敏感性和特异性分别为56%和79%。有证据表明存在发表偏倚,倾向于那些夸大高危患者合并自杀几率的研究。
基于多种风险因素存在的自杀风险分类强度并未大大超过个体自杀风险因素与自杀之间的关联。一种在统计学上强大且可靠的有效区分自杀高危患者的方法仍然难以捉摸。