Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33929640›Full record

ArticleJournal of urban health : bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine2021

Impact of ShotSpotter Technology on Firearm Homicides and Arrests Among Large Metropolitan Counties: a Longitudinal Analysis, 1999-2016.

Mitchell L Doucette, Christa Green, Jennifer Necci Dineen, David Shapiro, Kerri M Raissian

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of urban health : bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Surveillance Technologies and Constitutional Law.Annual review of criminology · 2023
    Article
  3. 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

5 authors.

Mitchell L DoucetteCenter for Gun Policy and Research, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 624 N. Wolfe St., Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA. mdoucet3@jhu.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-5558-2218
Christa GreenInjury Prevention Center, Hartford Hospital, Hartford, CT, USA.
Jennifer Necci DineenDepartment of Public Policy, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA.
David ShapiroSaint Francis Hospital & Medical Center, Hartford, CT, USA.
Kerri M RaissianDepartment of Public Policy, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over the past decade, large urban counties have implemented ShotSpotter, a gun fire detection technology, across the USA. It uses acoustic listening devices to identify discharged firearms' locations. We examined the effect of ShotSpotter with a pooled, cross-sectional time-series analysis within the 68 large metropolitan counties in the USA from 1999 to 2016. We identified ShotSpotter implementation years through publicly available media. We used a Poisson distribution to model the impact of ShotSpotter on firearm homicides, murder arrests, and weapons arrests. ShotSpotter did not display protective effects for all outcomes. Counties in states with permit-to-purchase firearm laws saw a 15% reduction in firearm homicide incidence rates; counties in states with right-to-carry laws saw a 21% increase in firearm homicide incidence rates. Results suggest that implementing ShotSpotter technology has no significant impact on firearm-related homicides or arrest outcomes. Policy solutions may represent a more cost-effective measure to reduce urban firearm violence.

Indexed as

FirearmsSuicideCross-Sectional StudiesHomicideHumansTechnologyFirearm violenceGunshot detection technologyInjury preventionUrban crime

Identifiers

PMID33929640
PMCPMC8566613

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.