Use my Search Websuite to scan PubMed, PMCentral, Journal Hosts and Journal Archives, FullText. Kick-your-searchterm to multiple Engines kick-your-query now !>

A dictionary by aggregated review articles of nephrology, medicine and the life sciences Your one-stop-run pathway from word to the immediate pdf of peer-reviewed on-topic knowledge.

10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009297 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009297 C4762148!4762148!26873046     free     free     free Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 209.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 209.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 209.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 209.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 209.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 209.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 209.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 243.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 243.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 243.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 243.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 243.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534       BMJ+Open 2016 ; 6 (2): ä Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=26873046|t=2016. Which are the most useful scales for predicting repeat self-harm? A systematic review evaluating risk scales using measures of diagnostic accuracy |pdf=|usr=}}{{26873046}} gab.com Text Which are the most useful scales for predicting repeat self-harm A systematic review evaluating risk scales using measures of diagnostic accuracy JO: BMJ Open http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=26873046 #FOAvip Objectives: The aims of this review were to calculate the diagnostic accuracy statistics of risk scales following self-harm and consider which might be the most useful scales in clinical practice. Design: Systematic review. Methods: We based our search terms on those used in the systematic reviews carried out for the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence self-harm guidelines (2012) and evidence update (2013), and updated the searches through to February 2015 (CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PsychINFO). Methodological quality was assessed and three reviewers extracted data independently. We limited our analysis to cohort studies in adults using the outcome of repeat self-harm or attempted suicide. We calculated diagnostic accuracy statistics including measures of global accuracy. Statistical pooling was not possible due to heterogeneity. Results: The eight papers included in the final analysis varied widely according to methodological quality and the content of scales employed. Overall, sensitivity of scales ranged from 6% (95% CI 5% to 6%) to 97% (CI 95% 94% to 98%). The positive predictive value (PPV) ranged from 5% (95% CI 3% to 9%) to 84% (95% CI 80% to 87%). The diagnostic OR ranged from 1.01 (95% CI 0.434 to 2.5) to 16.3 (95%CI 12.5 to 21.4). Scales with high sensitivity tended to have low PPVs. Conclusions: It is difficult to be certain which, if any, are the most useful scales for self-harm risk assessment. No scales perform sufficiently well so as to be recommended for routine clinical use. Further robust prospective studies are warranted to evaluate risk scales following an episode of self-harm. Diagnostic accuracy statistics should be considered in relation to the specific service needs, and scales should only be used as an adjunct to assessment. Twit Text FOAVip Which are the most useful scales for predicting repeat self-harm A systematic review evaluating risk scales using measures of diagnostic accuracy ????BMJ Open http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=26873046 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=26873046 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|26873046}}</ref> Which are the most useful scales for predicting repeat self-harm? A systematic review evaluating risk scales using measures of diagnostic accuracy #MMPMID26873046 Quinlivan L; Cooper J; Davies L; Hawton K; Gunnell D; Kapur N BMJ Open 2016[]; 6 (2): ä PMID26873046show ga Objectives: The aims of this review were to calculate the diagnostic accuracy statistics of risk scales following self-harm and consider which might be the most useful scales in clinical practice. Design: Systematic review. Methods: We based our search terms on those used in the systematic reviews carried out for the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence self-harm guidelines (2012) and evidence update (2013), and updated the searches through to February 2015 (CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PsychINFO). Methodological quality was assessed and three reviewers extracted data independently. We limited our analysis to cohort studies in adults using the outcome of repeat self-harm or attempted suicide. We calculated diagnostic accuracy statistics including measures of global accuracy. Statistical pooling was not possible due to heterogeneity. Results: The eight papers included in the final analysis varied widely according to methodological quality and the content of scales employed. Overall, sensitivity of scales ranged from 6% (95% CI 5% to 6%) to 97% (CI 95% 94% to 98%). The positive predictive value (PPV) ranged from 5% (95% CI 3% to 9%) to 84% (95% CI 80% to 87%). The diagnostic OR ranged from 1.01 (95% CI 0.434 to 2.5) to 16.3 (95%CI 12.5 to 21.4). Scales with high sensitivity tended to have low PPVs. Conclusions: It is difficult to be certain which, if any, are the most useful scales for self-harm risk assessment. No scales perform sufficiently well so as to be recommended for routine clinical use. Further robust prospective studies are warranted to evaluate risk scales following an episode of self-harm. Diagnostic accuracy statistics should be considered in relation to the specific service needs, and scales should only be used as an adjunct to assessment. äWhich are the most useful scales for predicting repeat self-harm? A sy(epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing