Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-pztms Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-30T03:10:44.706Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Association between suicidal ideation and suicide: meta-analyses of odds ratios, sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value – ERRATUM

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 March 2019

Catherine M. McHugh ,
Amy Corderoy ,
Christopher James Ryan ,
Ian B. Hickie  and
Matthew Michael Large
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Keywords

Suicidemortalityrisk assessmenterratum

Information

Type
Erratum
Information
BJPsych Open , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , March 2019 , e24
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal College of Psychiatrists 2019

The publishers regret to announce that the above paper was published with the incorrect article number.

The correct citation details are as follows:

McHugh CM, Corderoy A, Ryan CJ, Hickie IB, Large MM. Association between suicidal ideation and suicide: Meta-analyses of odds ratios, sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value. BJPsych Open 2019; 5(2): e18. doi:10.1192/bjo.2018.88.

This has now been updated in the original article online.

The publisher sincerely apologises for this error.

References

McHugh, CM, Corderoy, A, Ryan, CJ, Hickie, IB, Large, MM. Association between suicidal ideation and suicide: Meta-analyses of odds ratios, sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value. BJPsych Open 2019; 5(2): e18. doi:10.1192/bjo.2018.88.Google Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.