Prevalence of suicidal ideations and suicide attempts in patients with tuberculosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Suicide and suicidal behaviors are reported to be common in patients with Tuberculosis (TB). This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to quantitively assess the prevalence of suicidality and identify the factors associated with suicidality in patients with TB. METHODS: We searched databases PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar for studies that reported the prevalence of suicide, suicidal ideations, or suicide attempts in patients with TB. We assessed the quality of studies with the Newcastle Ottawa scale. Random-effects models were used to calculate the pooled prevalence with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: Nine studies (8770 participants) were included. Pooled prevalence for current suicidal ideations within the last year was 8.5% [95% CI: 5.8%12.3%]. Pooled prevalence for current suicidal attempts within the last year was 3.1% [2.2%- 4.5%]. Suicide was reported in 0.92% of TB patients at the end of 2 years, whereas 2.2% to 8.4% of all TB deaths were reported due to suicide. Factors associated with suicidality were female gender, TB retreatment, comorbid HIV, presence of another chronic medical illness, psychological distress, and comorbid psychiatric illnesses. CONCLUSION: The prevalence rates of suicidal ideation and attempts were higher in patients with TB than in the general population. Integrating mental health services with TB programs will help develop interventions for high-risk individuals. Prospero registration number: CRD42021281849.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.039 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".