Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42482115›Full record

ReviewJournal of intensive care2026

Physical restraint in the intensive care units: a narrative review of current practices and outcomes.

Xiaobo Yang

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of intensive care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

Xiaobo YangDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China. want.tofly@aliyun.com.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1098-3165

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPhysical restraint remains common in the intensive care unit (ICU), but it is increasingly questioned following recent high‑quality evidence, particularly the R2D2‑ICU trial, which challenges the assumption that reducing restraint inherently improves short‑term neurological outcomes. MAIN BODY: Epidemiological data reveal significant variability in the prevalence of restraint use, which is influenced by a complex interplay of patient characteristics, caregiver factors, and systemic elements. The evidence on its effectiveness for mainly preventing the pulling out of tubes is questionable. However, its association with a range of negative physical, neurological, and psychological outcomes. It also imposes a heavy burden of moral distress on caregivers, who are tasked with balancing patient safety against the imperative to minimize harm. Successful minimization of restraint use requires multicomponent approaches.

conclusionMoving toward restraint minimization requires a paradigm shift from viewing physical restraint as a standard safety tool to recognizing it as a potentially harmful intervention of last resort. Future evaluations should adopt the triadic outcomes framework outlined here, assessing neurological and psychological outcomes, family satisfaction, and caregiver moral burden to guide ethically sound, sustainable ICU practice.

Indexed as

DeliriumIntensive care unitNursing ethicsPatient safetyPhysical restraint

Identifiers

PMID42482115
PMCPMC13523299

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.