监禁中倾向约束相关的死亡率:综述。

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, LEGAL
Alon Steinberg , Amanda Frugoli
{"title":"监禁中倾向约束相关的死亡率:综述。","authors":"Alon Steinberg ,&nbsp;Amanda Frugoli","doi":"10.1016/j.forsciint.2025.112652","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Sudden and unexpected arrest-related deaths are deeply tragic and have generated widespread concern among the public, medical professionals, and law enforcement agencies. One mechanism that has garnered considerable attention is the use of prone restraint, wherein a subject is placed face-down and controlled in this position. The safety and risks of this technique remain subjects of debate within both scientific literature and legal settings. Supporters of prone restraint’s safety frequently cite prospective epidemiologic studies that report no fatalities associated with its use. However, these studies typically involve small cohorts and are conducted over limited timeframes, potentially underestimating rare but serious outcomes. In contrast, retrospective analyses, which assess larger populations over extended periods, have identified multiple cases of fatal outcomes linked to prone restraint. Notably, some of the most comprehensive data on these fatalities come from investigative journalism, which has uncovered patterns and prevalence rates not fully captured in academic or institutional studies. Based on available evidence, we estimate the mortality rate with use of in-custody prone restraint is at approximately 1 per 4.4 million individuals per year, or 0.023 per 100,000 population annually. These findings underscore the need for more rigorous, large-scale, and transparent epidemiological studies to better inform public policy, law enforcement practices, and clinical guidelines. The potential lethality of prone restraint must be recognized, and its use re-evaluated in light of both fatal risk and ethical responsibility.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":12341,"journal":{"name":"Forensic science international","volume":"377 ","pages":"Article 112652"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mortality associated with in-custody prone restraint: A review\",\"authors\":\"Alon Steinberg ,&nbsp;Amanda Frugoli\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.forsciint.2025.112652\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Sudden and unexpected arrest-related deaths are deeply tragic and have generated widespread concern among the public, medical professionals, and law enforcement agencies. One mechanism that has garnered considerable attention is the use of prone restraint, wherein a subject is placed face-down and controlled in this position. The safety and risks of this technique remain subjects of debate within both scientific literature and legal settings. Supporters of prone restraint’s safety frequently cite prospective epidemiologic studies that report no fatalities associated with its use. However, these studies typically involve small cohorts and are conducted over limited timeframes, potentially underestimating rare but serious outcomes. In contrast, retrospective analyses, which assess larger populations over extended periods, have identified multiple cases of fatal outcomes linked to prone restraint. Notably, some of the most comprehensive data on these fatalities come from investigative journalism, which has uncovered patterns and prevalence rates not fully captured in academic or institutional studies. Based on available evidence, we estimate the mortality rate with use of in-custody prone restraint is at approximately 1 per 4.4 million individuals per year, or 0.023 per 100,000 population annually. These findings underscore the need for more rigorous, large-scale, and transparent epidemiological studies to better inform public policy, law enforcement practices, and clinical guidelines. The potential lethality of prone restraint must be recognized, and its use re-evaluated in light of both fatal risk and ethical responsibility.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12341,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Forensic science international\",\"volume\":\"377 \",\"pages\":\"Article 112652\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Forensic science international\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0379073825002968\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, LEGAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Forensic science international","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0379073825002968","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, LEGAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

与逮捕有关的突然和意外死亡是非常悲惨的,并引起了公众、医疗专业人员和执法机构的广泛关注。其中一种机制引起了相当大的关注,即使用俯卧约束,其中受试者面朝下并控制在该位置。这种技术的安全性和风险在科学文献和法律环境中仍然是争论的主题。俯卧约束安全性的支持者经常引用前瞻性流行病学研究,报告没有与使用相关的死亡。然而,这些研究通常涉及较小的队列,并且在有限的时间框架内进行,可能低估罕见但严重的结果。相比之下,回顾性分析对更大的人群进行了长期评估,发现了多例与倾向约束有关的致命结果。值得注意的是,关于这些死亡人数的一些最全面的数据来自调查性新闻报道,这些数据揭示了学术或机构研究未充分捕捉到的模式和患病率。根据现有证据,我们估计,在拘留期间使用容易发生约束的死亡率约为每年每440万人中有1人死亡,或每年每10万人中有0.023人死亡。这些发现强调需要进行更严格、更大规模和更透明的流行病学研究,以便更好地为公共政策、执法实践和临床指南提供信息。必须认识到俯卧约束的潜在致命性,并根据致命风险和道德责任对其使用进行重新评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Mortality associated with in-custody prone restraint: A review
Sudden and unexpected arrest-related deaths are deeply tragic and have generated widespread concern among the public, medical professionals, and law enforcement agencies. One mechanism that has garnered considerable attention is the use of prone restraint, wherein a subject is placed face-down and controlled in this position. The safety and risks of this technique remain subjects of debate within both scientific literature and legal settings. Supporters of prone restraint’s safety frequently cite prospective epidemiologic studies that report no fatalities associated with its use. However, these studies typically involve small cohorts and are conducted over limited timeframes, potentially underestimating rare but serious outcomes. In contrast, retrospective analyses, which assess larger populations over extended periods, have identified multiple cases of fatal outcomes linked to prone restraint. Notably, some of the most comprehensive data on these fatalities come from investigative journalism, which has uncovered patterns and prevalence rates not fully captured in academic or institutional studies. Based on available evidence, we estimate the mortality rate with use of in-custody prone restraint is at approximately 1 per 4.4 million individuals per year, or 0.023 per 100,000 population annually. These findings underscore the need for more rigorous, large-scale, and transparent epidemiological studies to better inform public policy, law enforcement practices, and clinical guidelines. The potential lethality of prone restraint must be recognized, and its use re-evaluated in light of both fatal risk and ethical responsibility.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Forensic science international
Forensic science international 医学-医学:法
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
9.10%
发文量
285
审稿时长
49 days
期刊介绍: Forensic Science International is the flagship journal in the prestigious Forensic Science International family, publishing the most innovative, cutting-edge, and influential contributions across the forensic sciences. Fields include: forensic pathology and histochemistry, chemistry, biochemistry and toxicology, biology, serology, odontology, psychiatry, anthropology, digital forensics, the physical sciences, firearms, and document examination, as well as investigations of value to public health in its broadest sense, and the important marginal area where science and medicine interact with the law. The journal publishes: Case Reports Commentaries Letters to the Editor Original Research Papers (Regular Papers) Rapid Communications Review Articles Technical Notes.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信