Clinical Trials Studying Suicide Risk Reduction: Who is Excluded From Participation.

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q2 PSYCHIATRY
Ryan E Lawrence, Chaya Jaffe, Yinjun Zhao, Yuanjia Wang, Terry E Goldberg
{"title":"Clinical Trials Studying Suicide Risk Reduction: Who is Excluded From Participation.","authors":"Ryan E Lawrence, Chaya Jaffe, Yinjun Zhao, Yuanjia Wang, Terry E Goldberg","doi":"10.1080/13811118.2024.2322128","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The use of exclusion criteria in clinical trials can cause research participants to differ markedly from clinical populations, which negatively impacts generalizability of results. This study identifies and quantifies common and recurring exclusion criteria in clinical trials studying suicide risk reduction, and estimates their impact on eligibility among a clinical sample of adults in an emergency department with high suicide risk.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Recent trials were identified by searching PubMed (terms suicide, efficacy, effectiveness, limited to clinical trials in prior 5 years). Common exclusion criteria were identified using Qualitative Content Analysis. A retrospective chart review examined a one-month sample of all adults receiving psychiatric evaluation in a large urban academic emergency department.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The search yielded 27 unique clinical trials studying suicide risk reduction as a primary or secondary outcome. After research fundamentals (e.g. informed consent, language fluency), the most common exclusion criteria involved psychosis (77.8%), cognitive problems (66.7%), and substance use (63.0%). In the clinical sample of adults with high suicide risk (<i>N</i> = 232), psychosis exclusions would exclude 53.0% of patients and substance use exclusions would exclude 67.2% of patients. Overall, 5.6% of emergency psychiatry patients would be eligible for clinical trials that use common exclusion criteria.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Recent clinical trials studying suicide risk reduction have low generalizability to emergency psychiatry patients with high suicide risk. Trials enrolling persons with psychosis and substance use in particular are needed to improve generalizability to this clinical population.</p>","PeriodicalId":8325,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Suicide Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Suicide Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13811118.2024.2322128","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The use of exclusion criteria in clinical trials can cause research participants to differ markedly from clinical populations, which negatively impacts generalizability of results. This study identifies and quantifies common and recurring exclusion criteria in clinical trials studying suicide risk reduction, and estimates their impact on eligibility among a clinical sample of adults in an emergency department with high suicide risk.

Method: Recent trials were identified by searching PubMed (terms suicide, efficacy, effectiveness, limited to clinical trials in prior 5 years). Common exclusion criteria were identified using Qualitative Content Analysis. A retrospective chart review examined a one-month sample of all adults receiving psychiatric evaluation in a large urban academic emergency department.

Results: The search yielded 27 unique clinical trials studying suicide risk reduction as a primary or secondary outcome. After research fundamentals (e.g. informed consent, language fluency), the most common exclusion criteria involved psychosis (77.8%), cognitive problems (66.7%), and substance use (63.0%). In the clinical sample of adults with high suicide risk (N = 232), psychosis exclusions would exclude 53.0% of patients and substance use exclusions would exclude 67.2% of patients. Overall, 5.6% of emergency psychiatry patients would be eligible for clinical trials that use common exclusion criteria.

Conclusions: Recent clinical trials studying suicide risk reduction have low generalizability to emergency psychiatry patients with high suicide risk. Trials enrolling persons with psychosis and substance use in particular are needed to improve generalizability to this clinical population.

降低自杀风险的临床试验:哪些人不能参与。
目的:在临床试验中使用排除标准可能会导致研究参与者与临床人群存在明显差异,从而对结果的可推广性产生负面影响。本研究对研究降低自杀风险的临床试验中常见的和反复出现的排除标准进行了识别和量化,并估算了这些标准对急诊科高自杀风险成人临床样本的研究资格的影响:通过搜索 PubMed(术语自杀、疗效、有效性,仅限于过去 5 年中的临床试验)来确定近期的试验。使用定性内容分析法确定常见的排除标准。一项回顾性病历审查对在一个大型城市学术急诊科接受精神评估的所有成年人进行了为期一个月的抽样调查:搜索结果显示,共有 27 项临床试验将降低自杀风险作为主要或次要研究结果。在研究基本条件(如知情同意、语言流利程度)之后,最常见的排除标准涉及精神病(77.8%)、认知问题(66.7%)和药物使用(63.0%)。在自杀风险较高的成人临床样本中(N = 232),排除精神病的患者占 53.0%,排除药物使用的患者占 67.2%。总体而言,5.6%的精神科急诊患者有资格参加使用通用排除标准的临床试验:结论:近期研究降低自杀风险的临床试验对自杀风险较高的急诊精神病患者的普适性较低。为了提高对这一临床人群的可推广性,尤其需要对精神病患者和药物使用患者进行试验。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
7.10%
发文量
69
期刊介绍: Archives of Suicide Research, the official journal of the International Academy of Suicide Research (IASR), is the international journal in the field of suicidology. The journal features original, refereed contributions on the study of suicide, suicidal behavior, its causes and effects, and techniques for prevention. The journal incorporates research-based and theoretical articles contributed by a diverse range of authors interested in investigating the biological, pharmacological, psychiatric, psychological, and sociological aspects of suicide.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信