Suppr超能文献

自杀风险评估工具:一项评估证据确定性的系统综述

Instruments for the assessment of suicide risk: A systematic review evaluating the certainty of the evidence.

作者信息

Runeson Bo, Odeberg Jenny, Pettersson Agneta, Edbom Tobias, Jildevik Adamsson Ingalill, Waern Margda

机构信息

Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.

Centre for Psychiatry Research, Stockholm Health Care Services, Stockholm County Council, Stockholm, Sweden.

出版信息

PLoS One. 2017 Jul 19;12(7):e0180292. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0180292. eCollection 2017.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Instruments have been developed to facilitate suicide risk assessment. We aimed to evaluate the evidence for these instruments including assessment of risk of bias and diagnostic accuracy for suicide and suicide attempt.

METHODS

PubMed (NLM), PsycInfo, Embase, Cinahl and the Cochrane Library databases were searched until December 2014. We assessed risk of bias with QUADAS-2. The average sensitivity and specificity of each instrument was estimated and the certainty of the evidence was assessed with GRADE. We considered instruments with a sensitivity > 80% and a specificity > 50% to have sufficient diagnostic accuracy.

RESULTS

Thirty-five relevant studies were identified but 14 were considered to have high risk of bias, leaving 21 studies evaluating altogether 15 risk assessment instruments. We could carry out meta-analyses for five instruments. For the outcome suicide attempt SAD PERSONS Scale had a sensitivity of 15% (95% CI 8-24) and specificity of 97% (96-98), and the Manchester Self-Harm Rule (MSHR) a sensitivity of 97% (97-97) and a specificity of 20% (20-21). ReACT, which is a modification of MSHR, had a similar low specificity, as did the Sodersjukhuset Self Harm Rule. For the outcome suicide, the Beck Hopelessness Scale had a sensitivity of 89% (78-95) and specificity of 42% (40-43).

CONCLUSIONS

Most suicide risk assessment instruments were supported by too few studies to allow for evaluation of accuracy. Among those that could be evaluated, none fulfilled requirements for sufficient diagnostic accuracy.

摘要

背景

已开发出一些工具来促进自杀风险评估。我们旨在评估这些工具的证据,包括评估偏倚风险以及自杀和自杀未遂的诊断准确性。

方法

检索截至2014年12月的PubMed(美国国立医学图书馆)、PsycInfo、Embase、护理学与健康领域数据库(Cinahl)和考克兰图书馆数据库。我们使用QUADAS-2评估偏倚风险。估计每种工具的平均敏感性和特异性,并使用GRADE评估证据的确定性。我们认为敏感性>80%且特异性>50%的工具具有足够的诊断准确性。

结果

共识别出35项相关研究,但14项被认为存在高偏倚风险,剩余21项研究共评估了15种风险评估工具。我们可以对5种工具进行荟萃分析。对于自杀未遂这一结果,SAD PERSONS量表的敏感性为15%(95%置信区间8 - 24),特异性为97%(96 - 98);曼彻斯特自残规则(MSHR)的敏感性为97%(97 - 97),特异性为20%(20 - 21)。作为MSHR改良版的ReACT以及南泰利耶医院自残规则的特异性同样较低。对于自杀这一结果,贝克绝望量表的敏感性为89%(78 - 95),特异性为42%(40 - 43)。

结论

大多数自杀风险评估工具所获研究支持过少,无法评估其准确性。在那些可评估的工具中,没有一种满足足够诊断准确性的要求。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验