Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21328295›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2011

Interventions for preventing and reducing the use of physical restraints in long-term geriatric care.

Ralph Möhler, Tanja Richter, Sascha Köpke, Gabriele Meyer

Open access · greenAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
11.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 86 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Guideline
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Nonpharmacologic treatment of behavioral disorders in dementia.Current treatment options in neurology · 2013
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Important topic, unsatisfactorily reported.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2012
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ralph MöhlerDepartment of Nursing Science, Faculty of Health, Witten/Herdecke University, Stockumer Straße 12, Witten, Germany, 58453.
Tanja Richter
Sascha Köpke
Gabriele Meyer
Universität Hamburg · DEWitten/Herdecke University · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPhysical restraints (PR) are commonly used in geriatric long-term care. Restraint-free care should be the aim of high quality nursing care.

objectivesTo evaluate the effectiveness of interventions to prevent and reduce the use of physical restraints in older people who require long-term nursing care (either in community nursing care or in residential care facilities). SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's Specialized Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, LILACS, a number of trial registers and grey literature sources were searched on 7 September 2009. The following search terms were used: "physical restraint*", bedrail*, bedchair*, "containment measure*, elderly, "old people", geriatric*, aged, "nursing home*", "care home*", "geriatric care", "residential facilit*". SELECTION CRITERIA: Individual or cluster-randomised controlled trials comparing an intervention aimed at reducing the use of physical restraints with usual care in long-term geriatric care settings. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed the retrieved articles for relevance and methodological quality and extracted data. Critical appraisal of studies addressed risk of bias through selection bias, performance bias, attrition bias, and detection bias, as well as critera related to cluster designa. We contacted study authors for additional information where necessary. PR were defined heterogeneously throughout the studies. Not all studies offered sufficient data for aggregated data meta-analysis, and therefore study results are presented in a narrative form. MAIN

resultsFive cluster-randomised controlled studies met the inclusion criteria. All of them investigated educational approaches. Two studies offered consultation in addition and two other studies offered guidance for nursing staff in addition. Four studies examined nursing home residents and one study residents in group dwelling units. No studies in community settings were included. Three studies included only one or two nursing homes per study condition. Overall, methodological quality of studies was low.The studies revealed inconsistent results. One study in the nursing home setting documented an increase of PR use in both groups after eight months, while the other three studies found reduced use of PR in the intervention groups after seven and 12 months of follow up respectively. The single study examining residents in group dwelling units found no change in PR use in the intervention group after six months whereas PR use increased significantly in the control group. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThere is insufficient evidence supporting the effectiveness of educational interventions targeting nursing staff for preventing or reducing the use of physical restraints in geriatric long-term care.

Indexed as

AgedHomes for the AgedHumansLong-Term CareNursing HomesNursing StaffRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRestraint, Physical

Identifiers

PMID21328295
PMCPMC8978305
OpenAlexW1509364606

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.