Pharmacological and Somatic Treatment Effects on Suicide in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Suicide is a public health crisis. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of psychopharmacologic and somatic therapies on suicide risk. Methods: A systematic search of MEDLINE for studies evaluating the effects of pharmacologic (excluding antidepressants) or somatic interventions on suicide risk was conducted. Studies were included if they used a comparison group, reported on suicide death, assessed a psychopharmacological or somatic intervention, and included adults. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa scale. Fifty-seven studies were included from 2940 reviewed citations. Results: In bipolar disorder, lithium was associated with a reduction in the odds of suicide compared to active controls (odds ratio [OR] = .58, p = .005; k = 12) and compared to placebo/no lithium (OR = .46, p = .009; k = 9). In mixed diagnostic samples, lithium was associated with a reduction in the odds of suicide compared to placebo/no lithium (OR = .27, p < .001; k = 12), but not compared to active controls (OR = .89, p = .468; k = 7). In psychotic disorders, clozapine was associated with a reduction in the odds of suicide (OR = .46, p = .007; k = 7). Associations between suicide death and electroconvulsive therapy (OR = .77, p = .053; k = 11), non-clozapine antipsychotics in bipolar disorder (OR = .73, p = .090; k = 6) and antipsychotics in psychotic disorders (OR = .39, p = .069; k = 6) were not significant. There was no consistent relationship between antiepileptic mood stabilizers and suicide. There were insufficient studies to meta-analyze associations of suicide risk with vagus nerve stimulation, transcranial magnetic stimulation, magnetic seizure therapy, or transcranial direct current stimulation. Conclusion: Lithium and clozapine have consistent data supporting protective effects against suicide in certain clinical contexts. Reprinted from Depress Anxiety 2022; 39:100–112, with permission from John Wiley and Sons. Copyright © 2022
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 | 0.011 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.032 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".