Prevalence of suicidal behaviours among medical students in South Asia in the 1 <sup>st</sup> quarter of the 21 <sup>st</sup> century: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Medical students in South Asia face intense mental and psychosocial challenges, increasing their vulnerability to suicidal behaviours. Despite sporadic studies, no comprehensive meta-analysis has yet examined the prevalence and associated risk factors in this region. Limited mental health resources and underreporting further obscure the true burden. This study protocol aims to systematically assess suicidal behaviours among South Asian medical students. Methods and analysis This systematic review and meta-analysis will encompass Medline (PubMed), Scopus, Web of Science, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Google Scholar and regional databases for studies published between 1 st January 2000 and 1 st May 2025 on suicidal behaviours, adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines. Cross-sectional, longitudinal and cohort studies using validated assessment tools and including South Asian medical students, published without any language restriction will be included. Excluded studies will include review articles, intervention studies, commentaries, preprints, meeting abstracts, protocols, unpublished research and letters. Screening, data extraction and quality assessment will be conducted independently by reviewers using tools such as EndNote and Rayyan, with quality assessed via the modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Data synthesis will involve calculating pooled prevalence estimates using a random effect meta-analysis models, where applicable, narrative synthesis of risk factors. Forest plots will visualise pooled estimates, heterogeneity will be assessed using the I ² statistic, and funnel plots along with Egger’s test will be used to evaluate publication bias. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses will be conducted if substantial heterogeneity is detected. Statistical analysis will be conducted using R(v.4.3.2) with built-in meta-packages and GraphPad Prism v.9. Ethics and dissemination As this review involves only pre-published data, ethical approval is not required. The region-specific findings will be submitted to an international peer-reviewed journal and shared through scientific conferences, webinars and relevant platforms to disseminate the burden of suicidal behaviours among South Asian medical students. Key insights will be disseminated to policymakers, educators, clinicians and researchers to inform suicide prevention strategies and guide future research. PROSPERO registration number CRD420251032718.
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 | 0.051 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.029 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.002 |
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".