↓ Skip to main content

A mixed-methods systematic review protocol to examine the use of physical restraint with critically ill adults and strategies for minimizing their use

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
182 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A mixed-methods systematic review protocol to examine the use of physical restraint with critically ill adults and strategies for minimizing their use
Published in
Systematic Reviews, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13643-016-0372-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Louise Rose, Craig Dale, Orla M. Smith, Lisa Burry, Glenn Enright, Dean Fergusson, Samir Sinha, Lesley Wiesenfeld, Tasnim Sinuff, Sangeeta Mehta

Abstract

Critically ill patients frequently experience severe agitation placing them at risk of harm. Physical restraint is common in intensive care units (ICUs) for clinician concerns about safety. However, physical restraint may not prevent medical device removal and has been associated with negative physical and psychological consequences. While professional society guidelines, legislation, and accreditation standards recommend physical restraint minimization, guidelines for critically ill patients are over a decade old, with recommendations that are non-specific. Our systematic review will synthesize evidence on physical restraint in critically ill adults with the primary objective of identifying effective minimization strategies. Two authors will independently search from inception to July 2016 the following: Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, PROSPERO, Joanna Briggs Institute, grey literature, professional society websites, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We will include quantitative and qualitative study designs, clinical practice guidelines, policy documents, and professional society recommendations relevant to physical restraint of critically ill adults. Authors will independently perform data extraction in duplicate and complete risk of bias and quality assessment using recommended tools. We will assess evidence quality for quantitative studies using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach and for qualitative studies using the Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research (CERQual) guidelines. Outcomes of interest include (1) efficacy/effectiveness of physical restraint minimization strategies; (2) adverse events (unintentional device removal, psychological impact, physical injury) and associated benefits including harm prevention; (3) ICU outcomes (ventilation duration, length of stay, and mortality); (4) prevalence, incidence, patterns of use including patient and treatment characteristics and chemical restraint; (5) barriers and facilitators to minimization; (6) patient, family, and healthcare professional perspectives; (7) professional society-endorsed recommendations; and (8) evidence gaps and research priorities. We will use our systematic review findings to produce updated guidelines on physical restraint use for critically ill adults and to develop a professional society-endorsed position statement. This will foster patient and clinician safety by providing clinicians, administrators, and policy makers with a tool to promote minimal and safe use of physical restraint for critically ill adults. PROSPERO CRD42015027860.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 182 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 181 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 14%
Student > Bachelor 20 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 9%
Researcher 15 8%
Other 13 7%
Other 42 23%
Unknown 50 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 62 34%
Medicine and Dentistry 27 15%
Psychology 9 5%
Unspecified 6 3%
Social Sciences 5 3%
Other 20 11%
Unknown 53 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 November 2016.
All research outputs
#15,395,259
of 22,903,988 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,591
of 2,002 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#249,255
of 414,929 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#36
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,903,988 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,002 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 414,929 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.