ArticleLancet regional health. Americas2026
Physical restraint use in a United States intensive care unit-a retrospective cross sectional, single center cohort study from 2008 to 2022.
Article in Lancet regional health. Americas, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Physical restraint in the intensive care units: a narrative review of current practices and outcomes.Journal of intensive care · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Physical restraints are widely used in intensive care units (ICUs) despite uncertain clinical benefit and risks. We aimed to characterise patterns of restraint use, demographic and clinical predictors, and temporal trends before and after introduction of federal restraint-related reporting requirements. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study of 51,838 adults admitted to ICUs at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA, between 2008 and 2022, using data from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care IV (MIMIC-IV) electronic health record repository. Primary outcome was the proportion of ICU days with documented physical restraint use. Associations between restraint use and demographic and clinical factors were estimated using a binomial generalised linear model with a logit link. Propensity score matching compared Black and White patients under varying adjustment specifications. Findings: Among 51,838 patients (mean age 63.8 years; 57% male), 21,091 (40.7%) experienced restraint. Use increased from 36.9% in 2008-10 to 44.0% in 2020-22 (p < 0.0001). Asian (aOR 0.84, 95% CI 0.79-0.89) and Hispanic/Latino patients (aOR 0.87, 95% CI 0.83-0.92) had lower odds of restraint than White patients. Propensity score matching between Black and White patients revealed ethnic patterns were highly sensitive to model specification: excluding demographic characteristics revealed significant disparities, which were attenuated when psychiatric diagnoses were also excluded. Matched White patients were not representative of all White ICU patients but rather a subset resembling Black patients on observed characteristics. Interpretation: Restraint practices appear to vary with patient acuity, institutional factors, and communication barriers. The sensitivity of ethnic disparities to psychiatric diagnosis adjustment suggests these diagnoses may function as mediators rather than confounders, potentially reflecting systematic differences in clinical assessment along the causal pathway between ethnicity and restraint decisions. The non-representativeness of matched cohorts underscores that disparities depend on which patient subgroups are compared. Prospective multisite studies with standardized assessment protocols are needed to validate findings, disentangle true clinical variation from systematic bias and provide a more comprehensive understanding of restraint practices across US ICU settings. Funding: No study-specific funding was received.
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.