Predictive accuracy of risk scales following self-harm: multicentre, prospective cohort study.

BackgroundScales are widely used in psychiatric assessments following self-harm. Robust evidence for their diagnostic use is lacking.AimsTo 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.MethodA 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.ResultsIn 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).ConclusionsRisk 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.

Guaifenesin as a treatment for primary dysmenorrhea.

BACKGROUND: Dysmenorrhea is highly prevalent and causes much work loss and discomfort. A treatment with a new mechanism of action could benefit women of menstruating age. A study was undertaken to assess the efficacy of guaifenesin as a treatment for primary dysmenorrhea because of its effects of cervical dilation and cervical mucous thinning. METHODS: Thirty-four subjects with primary dysmenorrhea were enrolled in a double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Three treatment surveys measured 10 symptoms (lower abdominal pain, general abdominal pain, back pain, headache, nausea, diarrhea, constipation, menstrual flow, weakness, and activities of daily living) on a 100-mm visual analog scale. Nonstudy analgesic use was also measured. RESULTS: Twenty-five subjects returned the first treatment survey, and 17 returned all 3 surveys. Results were nonsignificant, but guaifenesin trended toward being better than placebo for dysmenorrhea pain and associated constitutional symptoms and caused no worsening of symptoms. Lower abdominal mean pain scores from the first survey decreased 38 mm for guaifenesin versus 7 mm for placebo. By the third survey, only 2 of 8 guaifenesin participants took nonstudy analgesics compared with all 9 placebo subjects. CONCLUSIONS: Guaifenesin may be useful in the treatment of primary dysmenorrhea. A larger study is needed to validate these initial findings.