Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40462226›Full record

ArticleInjury epidemiology2025

Extreme risk protection order use in six US states: a descriptive study.

Leslie M Barnard, Marian E Betz, Shannon Frattaroli, Christopher E Knoepke, Annette Christy, Julia P Schleimer, Veronica A Pear, Megan McCarthy, Reena Kapoor, Michael A Norko and 6 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Injury epidemiology, 2025. 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. 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

16 authors.

Leslie M BarnardFirearm Injury Prevention Initiative; University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA. leslie.barnard@ucdenver.edu.
Marian E BetzFirearm Injury Prevention Initiative; University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA.
Shannon FrattaroliJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Christopher E KnoepkeFirearm Injury Prevention Initiative; University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA.
Annette ChristyCollege of Behavioral and Community Sciences, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA.
Julia P SchleimerUniversity of California Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento, CA, USA.
Veronica A PearUniversity of California Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento, CA, USA.
Megan McCarthyFirearm Injury Prevention Initiative; University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA.
Reena KapoorYale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
Michael A NorkoYale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
Ali Rowhani-RahbarFirearm Injury & Policy Research Program, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Wenjuan MaCenter for Statistical Training and Consulting (CSTAT), Michigan State University, Lansing, MI, USA.
Garen J WintemuteUniversity of California Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento, CA, USA.
Jeffrey W SwansonDuke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.
Michele M EasterDuke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.
April M ZeoliSchool of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesExtreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs) are civil court orders that temporarily prohibit firearm purchase and possession by someone ("respondent") at imminent risk of harming themselves or others. Despite ERPOs being currently available in 21 states, DC, and U.S. V.I., little is known about the circumstances under which they are used across states.

methodsUsing a standardized protocol, we abstracted ERPO petitions and associated court documents from 6 states to examine characteristics of respondents, documented risks of harm, and court outcomes. Included cases were filed through June 30, 2020, from 2013 (Connecticut) or from when the law went into effect (California: 2016; Colorado: 2020; Florida: 2018; Maryland: 2018; and Washington: 2016).

resultsThere were 6,634 ERPO petitions across included states. The median age of respondents was 40.0 years (SD: 16.4), and 10.8% were female. Almost half of petitions noted suicidal threats, plans, or ideation (43.9%) as the precipitating event, half noted interpersonal violence threats (50.8%), and one quarter (24.6%) noted threats to both self and others. Around one third (36.0%) noted unlawful or reckless firearm use. The majority of petitions (84.1%) indicated the respondent had current or recent access to a firearm. Most (77.5%) of the final orders (post-hearing) were granted. ERPO implementation varied across states, particularly with regard to how frequently they were used, for what type of threat, and by what type of petitioner.

conclusionsThis study examined ERPO law implementation in 6 states, highlighting differences and similarities. This comparison allows for a more nuanced understanding of variation in ERPO use, which can inform ERPO implementation and future studies of ERPOs' effectiveness.

Indexed as

Extreme risk protection orderFirearm violence

Identifiers

PMID40462226
PMCPMC12131552

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.