SynthesisTrauma, violence & abuse2026
Predictive Validity of Violence Screening Tools in Emergency and Psychiatric Services: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Trauma, violence & abuse, 2026. 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.
- Article
- Pediatric Emergency Agitation Care Enhancement: Protocol for a Prospective Mixed Methods Study.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Violence against healthcare staff, including a threat or an act of violence toward people during their work, poses a physical and psychological risk to workers internationally. Screening is an important strategy in preventing violence against healthcare professionals. The aim of this systematic review was to synthesize evidence on the predictive validity of risk assessment tools used to screen for violence and aggression risk toward healthcare workers in emergency and psychiatric departments (PD). Primary studies that examined the predictive validity of risk assessment tools for workplace violence were identified via a systematic search of Medline, PsycINFO, Embase, and the Cochrane databases. There were 62 eligible studies, ten of which had a lower risk of bias (RoB). Those studies with high RoB were primarily due to a failure to present calibration measures as part of the analysis. All included studies adopted a longitudinal design and were conducted in PDs. The ten highest-quality studies reported on eight different instruments, four of which showed acceptable to outstanding predictive performance. The Dynamic Appraisal of Situational Aggression and the Brøset Violence Checklist showed the best predictive performance; they were also validated in emergency departments and are best suited for short-term risk prediction. We recommend that the selection of a risk assessment tool should consider the following: (a) the target population, (b) the violence operationalization, and (c) the purpose of the monitoring. We note that the use of a screening tool should be a part of a multicomponent strategy to ensure staff safety.
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.