ArticleInternal and emergency medicine2018
Mechanical restraint in an emergency department: a consecutive series of 593 cases.
Article in Internal and emergency medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating the Feasibility and Effectiveness of an Interdisciplinary Verbal De-Escalation and Implicit Bias Check Training for Agitation Management in the Emergency Department.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2025Article
- A New Perspective on Human Rights in the Use of Physical Restraint on Psychiatric Patients-Based on Merleau-Ponty's Phenomenology of the Body.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Review
- Overcoming the Use of Mechanical Restraints in Psychiatry: A New Challenge in the Everyday Clinical Practice at the Time of COVID-19.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Article
- Telemedicine is associated with rapid transfer and fewer involuntary holds among patients presenting with suicidal ideation in rural hospitals: a propensity matched cohort study.Journal of epidemiology and community health · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective is to describe the characteristics of mechanically restrained patients in the emergency department (ED) of a university hospital and to evaluate the quality of restraint documentation that was filled out according to the dedicated protocol with respect to the law on restraint. All adult patients (≥16 years) who were admitted to the ED from January 2009 to December 2010 and were mechanically restrained were included. We assessed medical and demographic characteristics, the completeness of the dedicated protocol, and the concomitant use of chemical sedation. 72,844 patients were admitted to the ED. Of these, 593 (0.81%) were mechanically restrained. Two types of patients were restrained: young patients under the influence of psychoactive substances who were usually discharged home, and confused older patients who were hospitalized. 186 dedicated protocols were missing (31.4%). From the 407 filled-out protocols, only 119 (29.2%) were complete. Of the mechanically restrained patients, 215 (36.2%) received additional chemical sedation. Even though restraint is strictly regulated by law, many protocols justifying the privation of liberty were not filled out. This emphasizes the need for strict respect of the dedicated protocol and the use of guidelines and training sessions for nursing and medical staff that address specific procedures for the two categories of patients needing to be restrained.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28625000What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.