Background and AimsViolent behaviour by forensic psychiatric inpatients is common. We aimed to systematically review the performance of structured risk assessment tools for violence in these settings.MethodsThe nine most commonly used violence risk assessment instruments used in psychiatric hospitals were examined. A systematic search of five databases (CINAHL, Embase, Global Health, PsycINFO and PubMed) was conducted to identify studies examining the predictive accuracy of these tools in forensic psychiatric inpatient settings. Risk assessment instruments were separated into those designed for imminent (within 24 hours) violence prediction and those designed for longer-term prediction. A range of accuracy measures and descriptive variables were extracted. A quality assessment was performed for each eligible study using the QUADAS-2. Summary performance measures (sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, diagnostic odds ratio, and area under the curve value) and HSROC curves were produced. In addition, meta-regression analyses investigated study and sample effects on tool performance.ResultsFifty-two eligible publications were identified, of which 43 provided information on tool accuracy in the form of AUC statistics. These provided data on 78 individual samples, with information on 6,840 patients. Of these, 35 samples (3,306 patients from 19 publications) provided data on all performance measures. The median AUC value for the wider group of 78 samples was higher for imminent tools (AUC 0.83; IQR: 0.71–0.85) compared with longer-term tools (AUC 0.68; IQR: 0.62-0.75). Other performance measures indicated variable accuracy for imminent and longer-term tools. Meta-regression indicated that no study or sample-related characteristics were associated with between-study differences in AUCs.InterpretationThe performance of current tools in predicting risk of violence beyond the first few days is variable, and the selection of which tool to use in clinical practice should consider accuracy estimates. For more imminent violence, however, there is evidence in support of brief scalable assessment tools.

BackgroundChronic kidney disease (CKD) is a largely asymptomatic condition of diminished renal function, which may not be detected until advanced stages without screening.AimTo establish undiagnosed and overall CKD prevalence using a cross-sectional analysis.Design and settingLongitudinal cohort study in UK primary care.MethodParticipants aged ≥60 years were invited to attend CKD screening visits to determine whether they had reduced renal function (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] <60 ml/min/1.73 m2 or albumin:creatinine ratio ≥3 mg/mmol). Those with existing CKD, low eGFR, evidence of albuminuria, or two positive screening tests attended a baseline assessment (CKD cohort).ResultsA total of 3207 participants were recruited and 861 attended the baseline assessment. The CKD cohort consisted of 327 people with existing CKD, 257 people with CKD diagnosed through screening (CKD prevalence of 18.2%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 16.9 to 19.6), and 277 with borderline/transient decreased renal function. In the CKD cohort, 54.4% were female, mean standard deviation (SD) age was 74.0 (SD 6.9) years, and mean eGFR was 58.0 (SD 18.4) ml/min/1.73 m2. Of the 584 with confirmed CKD, 44.0% were diagnosed through screening. Over half of the CKD cohort (51.9%, 447/861) fell into CKD stages 3–5 at their baseline assessment, giving an overall prevalence of CKD stages 3–5 of 13.9% (95% CI = 12.8 to 15.1). More people had reduced eGFR using the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) equation than with CKD Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equation in the 60–75-year age group and more had reduced eGFR using CKD-EPI in the ≥80-year age group.ConclusionThis study found that around 44.0% of people living with CKD are undiagnosed without screening, and prevalence of CKD stages 1–5 was 18.2% in participants aged >60 years. Follow-up will provide data on annual incidence, rate of CKD progression, determinants of rapid progression, and predictors of cardiovascular events.

CTOs do not have benefit on any of the tested outcomes, or for any subgroup of patients. Their continued use should be carefully reconsidered.