Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27885587›Full record

ArticleInjury epidemiology2016

Assaults against U.S. law enforcement officers in the line-of-duty: situational context and predictors of lethality.

Cassandra K Crifasi, Keshia M Pollack, Daniel W Webster

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Injury epidemiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Manhandling injuries during legal interventions.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2023
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Nonfatal Injuries to Law Enforcement Officers: A Rise in Assaults.American journal of preventive medicine · 2018
    Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Cassandra K CrifasiDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 624 N. Broadway, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA. crifasi@jhu.edu.
Keshia M PollackJohns Hopkins Education and Research Center for Occupational Safety and Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 N. Wolfe St, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.
Daniel W WebsterDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 624 N. Broadway, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.
Johns Hopkins University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundResearch on occupational safety of law enforcement officers (LEOs) has primarily focused on fatal assaults. Nonfatal assaults, however, have received little attention. The goal of this study was to describe the situational contexts in which LEOs are assaulted, and compare these contexts and risks between fatal and nonfatal assaults in the U.S. Analyzing both types of assaults provides a more complete understanding of occupational safety and opportunities for intervention.

methodsThis study includes a descriptive epidemiology of fatal and nonfatal assaults of LEOs in the U.S. and a pooled cross-sectional analysis of risk factors contributing to the odds of lethal assault. Data were collected from the Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted database. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize fatal and nonfatal assaults. Odds ratios were generated to understand the odds that an assault would result in a fatality.

resultsBetween 1998 and 2013, there were 791 fatal assaults and 2,022 nonfatal assaults of LEOs. Nearly 60% of primary wounds in fatal assaults were received to the head, neck, or throat while nearly 50% of primary wounds in nonfatal assaults were received to the arms/hands or below the waist. The odds that an assault resulted in a fatality decreased by 57% (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.58) when a LEO was wearing body armor. LEOs experiencing an ambush or unprovoked attack had significantly increased odds of an assault resulting in a fatality (OR 3.27, 95% CI 1.83 to 5.85 and OR 2.24, 95% CI 1.44 to 3.47 respectively). LEOs that were disarmed during an encounter with a suspect had more than 2-fold increased odds of an assault resulting in a fatality (OR 2.24, 95% CI 1.48 to 3.38).

conclusionsThere are specific situational and encounter characteristics that influence the lethality of an assault, which suggest strategies for prevention. Mandatory wear policies for the use of body armor could significantly reduce mortality among assaulted LEOs.

Indexed as

EpidemiologyLaw enforcementViolenceWorkplace

Identifiers

PMID27885587
PMCPMC5122525
OpenAlexW2551619988

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.