Prediction of suicidal behaviour is an aspirational goal for clinicians and policy makers; with patients classified as ‘high risk’ to be preferentially allocated treatment. Clinical usefulness requires an adequate positive predictive value (PPV).

To identify studies of predictive instruments and to calculate PPV estimates for suicidal behaviours.

A systematic review identified studies of predictive instruments. A series of meta-analyses produced pooled estimates of PPV for suicidal behaviours.

For all scales combined, the pooled PPVs were: suicide 5.5% (95% CI 3.9–7.9%), self-harm 26.3% (95% CI 21.8–31.3%) and self-harm plus suicide 35.9% (95% CI 25.8–47.4%). Subanalyses on self-harm found pooled PPVs of 16.1% (95% CI 11.3–22.3%) for high-quality studies, 32.5% (95% CI 26.1–39.6%) for hospital-treated self-harm and 26.8% (95% CI 19.5–35.6%) for psychiatric in-patients.

No ‘high-risk’ classification was clinically useful. Prevalence imposes a ceiling on PPV. Treatment should reduce exposure to modifiable risk factors and offer effective interventions for selected subpopulations and unselected clinical populations.

Few randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have shown decreases in suicide.

To identify interventions for preventing suicide.

We searched EMBASE and Medline from inception until 31 December 2015. We included RCTs comparing prevention strategies with control. We pooled odds ratios (ORs) for suicide using the Peto method.

Among 8647 citations, 72 RCTs and 6 pooled analyses met inclusion criteria. Three RCTs (n = 2028) found that the World Health Organization (WHO) brief intervention and contact (BIC) was associated with significantly lower odds of suicide (OR = 0.20, 95% CI 0.09–0.42). Six RCTs (n = 1040) of cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT) for suicide prevention and six RCTs of lithium (n = 619) yielded non-significant findings (OR = 0.34, 95% CI 0.12–1.03 and OR = 0.23, 95% CI 0.05–1.02, respectively).

The WHO BIC is a promising suicide prevention strategy. No other intervention showed a statistically significant effect in reducing suicide.

Ketamine has emerged as a novel therapeutic agent for major depressive episodes, spurring interest in its potential to augment electroconvulsive therapy (ECT).

We sought to update our preliminary systematic review and meta-analysis, focusing on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving an index course of ECT, and testing the hypothesis that lack of efficacy is due to barbiturate anaesthetic co-administration.

We searched EMBASE, CENTRAL and Medline to identify RCTs examining the efficacy of ketamine during a course of ECT. Data were synthesised from ten trials (ketamine group n = 333, comparator group n = 269) using pooled random effects models.

Electroconvulsive therapy with ketamine was not associated with greater improvements in depressive symptoms or higher rates of clinical response or remission, nor did it result in pro-cognitive effects. This held true when limiting analysis to trials without barbiturate anaesthetic co-administration. Increased rates of confusion were reported.

Overall, our analyses do not support using ketamine over other induction agents in ECT.

It has been suggested that offspring of parents with bipolar disorder are at increased risk for disruptive mood dysregulation disorder (DMDD), but the specificity of this association has not been established.

We examined the specificity of DMDD to family history by comparing offspring of parents with (a) bipolar disorder, (b) major depressive disorder and (c) a control group with no mood disorders.

We established lifetime diagnosis of DMDD using the Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for School Aged Children for DSM-5 in 180 youth aged 6–18 years, including 58 offspring of parents with bipolar disorder, 82 offspring of parents with major depressive disorder and 40 control offspring.

Diagnostic criteria for DMDD were met in none of the offspring of parents with bipolar disorder, 6 of the offspring of parents with major depressive disorder and none of the control offspring. DMDD diagnosis was significantly associated with family history of major depressive disorder.

Our results suggest that DMDD is not specifically associated with a family history of bipolar disorder and may be associated with parental depression.

Lithium and quetiapine are considered standard maintenance agents for bipolar disorder yet it is unclear how their efficacy compares with each other.

To investigate the differential effect of lithium and quetiapine on symptoms of depression, mania, general functioning, global illness severity and quality of life in patients with recently stabilised first-episode mania.

Maintenance trial of patients with first-episode mania stabilised on a combination of lithium and quetiapine, subsequently randomised to lithium or quetiapine monotherapy (up to 800 mg/day) and followed up for 1 year. (Trial registration: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry – ACTRN12607000639426.)

In total, 61 individuals were randomised. Within mixed-model repeated measures analyses, significant omnibus treatment × visit interactions were observed for measures of overall psychopathology, psychotic symptoms and functioning. Planned and post hoc comparisons further demonstrated the superiority of lithium treatment over quetiapine.

In people with first-episode mania treated with a combination of lithium and quetiapine, continuation treatment with lithium rather than quetiapine is superior in terms of mean levels of symptoms during a 1-year evolution.

Ketamine has recently become an agent of interest as an acute treatment for severe depression and as the anaesthetic for electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). Subanaesthetic doses result in an acute reduction in depression severity while evidence is equivocal for this antidepressant effect with anaesthetic or adjuvant doses. Recent systematic reviews call for high-quality evidence from further randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

To establish if ketamine as the anaesthetic for ECT results in fewer ECT treatments, improvements in depression severity ratings and less memory impairment than the standard anaesthetic.

Double-blind, parallel-design, RCT of intravenous ketamine (up to 2 mg/kg) with an active comparator, intravenous propofol (up to 2.5 mg/kg), as the anaesthetic for ECT in patients receiving ECT for major depression on an informal basis. (Trial registration: European Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT): 2011-000396-14 and clinicalTrials.gov: NCT01306760.)

No significant differences were found on any outcome measure during, at the end of or 1 month following the ECT course.

Ketamine as an anaesthetic does not enhance the efficacy of ECT.

Scales are widely used in psychiatric assessments following self-harm. Robust evidence for their diagnostic use is lacking.

To evaluate the performance of risk scales (Manchester Self-Harm Rule, ReACT Self-Harm Rule, SAD PERSONS scale, Modified SAD PERSONS scale, Barratt Impulsiveness Scale); and patient and clinician estimates of risk in identifying patients who repeat self-harm within 6 months.

A multisite prospective cohort study was conducted of adults aged 18 years and over referred to liaison psychiatry services following self-harm. Scale a priori cut-offs were evaluated using diagnostic accuracy statistics. The area under the curve (AUC) was used to determine optimal cut-offs and compare global accuracy.

In total, 483 episodes of self-harm were included in the study. The episode-based 6-month repetition rate was 30% (n = 145). Sensitivity ranged from 1% (95% CI 0–5) for the SAD PERSONS scale, to 97% (95% CI 93–99) for the Manchester Self-Harm Rule. Positive predictive values ranged from 13% (95% CI 2–47) for the Modified SAD PERSONS Scale to 47% (95% CI 41–53) for the clinician assessment of risk. The AUC ranged from 0.55 (95% CI 0.50–0.61) for the SAD PERSONS scale to 0.74 (95% CI 0.69–0.79) for the clinician global scale. The remaining scales performed significantly worse than clinician and patient estimates of risk (P < 0.001).

Risk scales following self-harm have limited clinical utility and may waste valuable resources. Most scales performed no better than clinician or patient ratings of risk. Some performed considerably worse. Positive predictive values were modest. In line with national guidelines, risk scales should not be used to determine patient management or predict self-harm.