A comparison between clinicians' assessment and the Manchester Self-Harm Rule: A cohort studyCitation formats

Standard

A comparison between clinicians' assessment and the Manchester Self-Harm Rule: A cohort study. / Cooper, Jayne; Kapur, Navneet; Mackway-Jones, Kevin.

In: Emergency Medicine Journal, Vol. 24, No. 10, 10.2007, p. 720-721.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Harvard

Cooper, J, Kapur, N & Mackway-Jones, K 2007, 'A comparison between clinicians' assessment and the Manchester Self-Harm Rule: A cohort study', Emergency Medicine Journal, vol. 24, no. 10, pp. 720-721. https://doi.org/10.1136/emj.2007.048983

APA

Vancouver

Author

Cooper, Jayne ; Kapur, Navneet ; Mackway-Jones, Kevin. / A comparison between clinicians' assessment and the Manchester Self-Harm Rule: A cohort study. In: Emergency Medicine Journal. 2007 ; Vol. 24, No. 10. pp. 720-721.

Bibtex

@article{cfce450bb66e442a8422ce57b1524bb3,
title = "A comparison between clinicians' assessment and the Manchester Self-Harm Rule: A cohort study",
abstract = "As identifying patients at risk of subsequent suicidal behaviour is a key goal of assessment, a cohort study of presentations to five emergency departments following episodes of self-harm was carried out. We compared the accuracy of the prediction of subsequent self-harm within 6 months between global clinical assessments and the Manchester Self-harm Rule. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values with 95{\%} confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Global clinical assessments and the rule had a sensitivity of 85{\%} (CI 83 to 87) versus 94{\%} (CI 92{\%} to 95{\%}), specificity of 38{\%} (CI 37{\%} to 39{\%}) versus 26{\%} (CI 24{\%} to 27{\%}), a positive predictive value of 22{\%} (CI 21{\%} to 23{\%}) versus 21{\%} (CI 19{\%} to 21{\%}) and a negative predictive value of 92{\%} (CI 91{\%} to 93{\%}) versus 96{\%} (CI 94{\%} to 96{\%}). The accuracy of predicting short-term repetition of self-harm by clinicians could be improved by incorporating this simple rule into their assessment.",
author = "Jayne Cooper and Navneet Kapur and Kevin Mackway-Jones",
year = "2007",
month = "10",
doi = "10.1136/emj.2007.048983",
language = "English",
volume = "24",
pages = "720--721",
journal = "Emergency Medicine Journal",
issn = "1472-0205",
publisher = "BMJ",
number = "10",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - A comparison between clinicians' assessment and the Manchester Self-Harm Rule: A cohort study

AU - Cooper, Jayne

AU - Kapur, Navneet

AU - Mackway-Jones, Kevin

PY - 2007/10

Y1 - 2007/10

N2 - As identifying patients at risk of subsequent suicidal behaviour is a key goal of assessment, a cohort study of presentations to five emergency departments following episodes of self-harm was carried out. We compared the accuracy of the prediction of subsequent self-harm within 6 months between global clinical assessments and the Manchester Self-harm Rule. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Global clinical assessments and the rule had a sensitivity of 85% (CI 83 to 87) versus 94% (CI 92% to 95%), specificity of 38% (CI 37% to 39%) versus 26% (CI 24% to 27%), a positive predictive value of 22% (CI 21% to 23%) versus 21% (CI 19% to 21%) and a negative predictive value of 92% (CI 91% to 93%) versus 96% (CI 94% to 96%). The accuracy of predicting short-term repetition of self-harm by clinicians could be improved by incorporating this simple rule into their assessment.

AB - As identifying patients at risk of subsequent suicidal behaviour is a key goal of assessment, a cohort study of presentations to five emergency departments following episodes of self-harm was carried out. We compared the accuracy of the prediction of subsequent self-harm within 6 months between global clinical assessments and the Manchester Self-harm Rule. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Global clinical assessments and the rule had a sensitivity of 85% (CI 83 to 87) versus 94% (CI 92% to 95%), specificity of 38% (CI 37% to 39%) versus 26% (CI 24% to 27%), a positive predictive value of 22% (CI 21% to 23%) versus 21% (CI 19% to 21%) and a negative predictive value of 92% (CI 91% to 93%) versus 96% (CI 94% to 96%). The accuracy of predicting short-term repetition of self-harm by clinicians could be improved by incorporating this simple rule into their assessment.

U2 - 10.1136/emj.2007.048983

DO - 10.1136/emj.2007.048983

M3 - Article

VL - 24

SP - 720

EP - 721

JO - Emergency Medicine Journal

JF - Emergency Medicine Journal

SN - 1472-0205

IS - 10

ER -