SynthesisPloS one2023
An analysis of Chinese nursing electronic medical records to predict violence in psychiatric inpatients using text mining and machine learning techniques.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- How Does Artificial Intelligence Align With Person-Centred Principles in Mental Health Nursing? A Scoping Review.International journal of mental health nursing · 2026Article
- Speech analysis for differentiating bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder during euthymic states.Annals of general psychiatry · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Mental Health Nursing: Balancing Clinical Efficiency and the Human Touch-A Quest for a New Synthesis.Journal of psychiatric and mental health nursing · 2025Review
- Nurses' Perception towards Electronic Medical Records System: An Integrative Review of Barriers and Facilitators.Iranian journal of public health · 2025Review
- Identifying the Most Critical Predictors of Workplace Violence Experienced by Junior Nurses: An Interpretable Machine Learning Perspective.Journal of nursing management · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe prevalence of violence in acute psychiatric wards is a critical concern. According to a meta-analysis investigating violence in psychiatric inpatient units, researchers estimated that approximately 17% of inpatients commit one or more acts of violence during their stay. Inpatient violence negatively affects health-care providers and patients and may contribute to high staff turnover. Therefore, predicting which psychiatric inpatients will commit violence is of considerable clinical significance.
objectiveThe present study aimed to estimate the violence rate for psychiatric inpatients and establish a predictive model for violence in psychiatric inpatients.
methodsWe collected the structured and unstructured data from Chinese nursing electronic medical records (EMRs) for the violence prediction. The data was obtained from the psychiatry department of a regional hospital in southern Taiwan, covering the period between January 2008 and December 2018. Several text mining and machine learning techniques were employed to analyze the data.
resultsThe results demonstrated that the rate of violence in psychiatric inpatients is 19.7%. The patients with violence in psychiatric wards were generally younger, had a more violent history, and were more likely to be unmarried. Furthermore, our study supported the feasibility of predicting aggressive incidents in psychiatric wards by using nursing EMRs and the proposed method can be incorporated into routine clinical practice to enable early prediction of inpatient violence.
conclusionsOur findings may provide clinicians with a new basis for judgment of the risk of violence in psychiatric wards.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.