ArticleBJPsych open2024
Investigating the association of mechanical restraint with somatic harmful outcomes: national register-based study.
Article in BJPsych open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCoercive measures to manage disruptive or violent behaviour are accepted as standard practice in mental healthcare, but systematic knowledge of potentially harmful outcomes is insufficient.
aimsTo examine the association of mechanical restraint with several predefined somatic harmful outcomes.
methodWe conducted a population-based, observational cohort study linking data from the Danish national registers from 2007 to 2019. The primary analyses investigated the association of mechanical restraint with somatic adverse events, using panel regression analyses (within-individual analysis) to account for repeated exposures and outcomes. Secondary between-group analyses were performed with a control group exposed to types of coercion other than mechanical restraint.
resultsThe study population comprised 13 022 individuals. We report a statistically significant association of mechanical restraint with thromboembolic events (relative risk 4.377, number needed to harm (NNH) 8231), pneumonia (relative risk 5.470, NNH 3945), injuries (relative risk 2.286, NNH 3240) and all-cause death (relative risk 5.540, NNH 4043) within 30 days after mechanical restraint. Estimates from the between-group analyses (comparing the exposed group with a control group of 22 643 individuals) were non-significant or indicated increased baseline risk in the control group. A positive dose-response analysis for cardiac arrest, injury and death supported a causative role of mechanical restraint in the reported associations.
conclusionsAlthough the observed absolute risk increases were small, the derived relative risks were non-negligible considering that less restrictive interventions are available. Clinicians and decision makers should be aware of the excess risk in future decisions on the use of mechanical restraint versus alternative interventions.
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.