ArticleEmergency medicine Australasia : EMA2025
Review article: Scoping review of interventions that reduce mechanical restraint in the emergency department.
Article in Emergency medicine Australasia : EMA, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- From Control to Connection: Reflections on Implementing Safe Steps in Acute Mental Health Units.International journal of mental health nursing · 2026Article
- In Pursuit of Calm: Strategies to Manage Pediatric Acute Agitation.Annals of emergency medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveMechanical restraints are known to be associated with many undesirable outcomes in clinical settings. Our objective was to examine the current literature to explore possible interventions that would reduce the use of mechanical restraints in the ED.
methodsIn this scoping review, we searched online databases Embase, MEDLINE and Cochrane CENTRAL for any studies published between the databases from 1 January 2007 to 19 September 2023. Studies were included if interventions were hospital- or staff-focused and reported measured outcomes before and after the introduction of the intervention. Risk of bias was assessed using the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Cohort Studies.
resultsThe search strategy yielded 1937 studies across the three databases, of which 13 studies were extracted and included in the review. Interventions were categorised into four groups: provision of staff training, addition of a de-escalation team, creation of a dedicated unit and introduction of an agitation scale only. Most of the studies saw reduction in restraint rates or time in restraints. Only the two studies that used an agitation scale as a stand-alone intervention saw no significant reduction. Only one study had low risk of bias, whereas the remainder had high risk.
conclusionsEvidence supports further exploration of interventions that include: designing an agitation guideline; training staff in assessment, attitudinal and de-escalation skills; addition of a crisis team; and environmental changes in the form of adding a dedicated clinical space. Although these strategies may reduce mechanical restraint in the ED setting, further high-quality studies are needed before definitive conclusions may be drawn.
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.