Background: For centuries coercive measures in psychiatry have been means of averting acute danger. It has been known for almost as long that these measures can lead to harm or even death to those affected. Over the past two decades the topic has increasingly been the subject of scientific discussion and research. While the legal and ethical preconditions for coercive measures in psychiatry as well as epidemiological studies on their incidence and patients’ subjective experiences have increasingly come into focus, research on possible adverse events has lagged behind. To our knowledge there is no systematic review on the harmful or even fatal physical adverse effects of coercive interventions in psychiatry. Methods: We searched the databases PubMed and CINAHL for primary literature with a search string based on the PICO framework including key words describing different psychiatric diagnoses, coercive measures, and harms. Results: In total, 67 eligible studies (mainly case reports and case series) of very heterogeneous quality were included. Two RCTs were found reporting position-dependent cardiac deterioration, but were, however, carried out with healthy people and were characterized by a small number of cases. Death was the most frequently reported harm: cardiac arrest by chest compression in 14 studies, cardiac arrest by strangulation in 9, and pulmonary embolism in 8 studies. Further harms were, among others, venous thromboembolism and injuries. Injuries during physical restraint were reported in 0.8–4% of cases. For other kinds of coercive interventions, there are no sufficient data. Venous thromboembolism occurred in a considerable percentage of cases during mechanical restraint, also under prophylaxis. The most commonly reported coercive measure was restraint, distinguishing in mechanical restraint (43 studies), physical restraint (22 studies), bedrails (eight studies), vest restraint (7 studies), and chair restraint (6 studies). Forced medication was explicitly mentioned only in two, but seems to have occurred in nine studies. Six studies included seclusion. Conclusion: Coercive measures can lead to physical harm or even death. However, there is a significant lack of data on the incidence of such adverse events related to coercive interventions. Though reported anecdotally, physical adverse events during seclusion appear to be highly underresearched.
Recent studies have indicated that long-term neurological sequelae after COVID-19 are not accompanied by an increase of canonical biomarkers of central nervous system injury in blood, but subgroup stratifications are lacking. This is a particular concern in chronic headache, which can be a leading symptom of Post-COVID diseases associated with neuronal damage such as vasculitis or autoimmune encephalitis. We here compared patients with mild Post-COVID-19 syndrome and persistent headache (persistent Post-COVID-19 headache) lasting longer than 12 weeks after the initial serological diagnosis, to patients with mild and severe COVID-19 and COVID-19-negative controls. Levels of neurofilament light chain and glial fibrillary astrocytic protein, i.e. markers of neuronal damage and reactive astrogliosis, were lower in blood from patients with persistent Post-COVID-19 headache compared to patients with severe COVID-19. Hence, our pilot serological study indicates that long-term Post-COVID-19 headache may not be a sign of underlying neuronal damage or neuroinflammation.
ZusammenfassungZwangsmaßnahmen sind in der Psychiatrie das Mittel der letzten Wahl, wenn andere Maßnahmen versagen, um akute Gefahr für den Betroffenen oder das Umfeld abzuwenden. Dass trotz Einhalten aller Sicherheitsvorkehrungen Komplikationen auftreten können, zeigt der folgende Fall eines jungen Mannes, der aufgrund akuter Eigen- und Fremdgefährdung fixiert war und nach einem Lockerungsversuch, in dem er erneut bedrohlich fremdaggressiv agierte, bei der Refixierung einen „Segufix ®-Metalsockel“ verschluckte.
Background. Creatine is an organic compound that facilitates the recycling of energy-providing adenosine triphosphate (ATP) in muscle and brain tissue. It is a safe, well-studied supplement for strength training. Previous studies have shown that supplementation increases brain creatine levels, which might increase cognitive performance. The results of studies that have tested cognitive performance differ greatly, possibly due to different populations, supplementation regimens and cognitive tasks. This is the largest study on the effect of creatine supplementation on cognitive performance to date. As part of our study, we replicated Rae et al. (2003). Methods. Our trial was cross-over, double-blind, placebo-controlled, and randomised, with daily supplementation of 5g for six weeks each. Like Rae et al. (2003), we tested participants on Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices (RAPM) and on the Backward Digit Span (BDS). In addition, we included eight exploratory cognitive tests. About half of our 123 participants were vegetarians and half were omnivores. Results. There was no indication that vegetarians benefited more from creatine than omnivores, so we merged the two groups. Participants' scores after creatine and after placebo differed to an extent that was not statistically significant (BDS: p = 0.064, partial eta squared = 0.029; RAPM: p = 0.327, partial eta squared = 0.008). Compared to the null hypothesis of no effect, Bayes factors indicate weak evidence in favour of a small beneficial creatine effect and strong evidence against a large creatine effect. There was no indication that creatine improved the performance of our exploratory cognitive tasks. Side effects were reported significantly more often for creatine than for placebo supplementation (p = 0.002, RR = 4.25). Conclusions. Our results do not support large effects of creatine on the selected measures of cognition. However, our study, in combination with the literature, implies that creatine might have a small beneficial effect. Larger studies are needed to confirm or rule out this effect. Given the safety and broad availability of creatine, this is well worth investigating; a small effect could have large benefits when scaled over time and over many people.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.