Cited by 5Gun Ownership and Violence ResearchHomicide, Infanticide, and Child AbuseSuicide and Self-Harm Studies

A systematic review of recurrent firearm injury rates in the United States

Shayan, Muhammad, Lew, Daphne, Mancini, Michael, Foraker, Randi E., Doering, Michelle, Mueller, Kristen L.·2023·Preventive Medicine

Abstract

Objectives To conduct a systematic review of methodologies, data sources, and best practices for identifying, calculating, and reporting recurrent firearm injury rates in the United States. Methods In accordance with PRISMA guidelines, we searched seven electronic databases on December 16, 2021, for peer-reviewed articles that calculated recurrent firearm injury in generalizable populations. Two reviewers independently assessed the risk of bias, screened the studies, extracted data, and a third resolved conflicts. Findings Of the 918 unique articles identified, 14 met our inclusion criteria and reported recurrent firearm injury rates from 1% to 9.5%. We observed heterogeneity in study methodologies, including data sources utilized, identification of subsequent injury, follow-up times, and the types of firearm injuries studied. Data sources ranged from single-site hospital medical records to comprehensive statewide records comprising medical, law enforcement, and social security death index data. Some studies applied machine learning to electronic health records to differentiate subsequent new firearm injuries from the index injury, while others classified all repeat firearm-related hospital admissions after variably defined cut-off times as a new injury. Some studies required a minimum follow-up observation period after the index injury while others did not. Four studies conducted survival analyses, albeit using different methodologies. Conclusions Variability in both the dat…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ypmed.2023.107443

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The precision of classification methods remains unestablished and comparisons between these methods have not been published.

    “While the variability of classification methods is known, and was recently (2023) described in a systematic review on firearm injury recurrence, the precision of these methods remain unestablished and comparisons between these methods, to our knowledge, have not been published.13”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shayan, M., Lew, D., Mancini, M., Foraker, R. E., Doering, M., & Mueller, K. L.
Affiliations
  • Washington University in St. Louis (US)
  • Saint Louis University (US)
Corresponding author
Mueller, Kristen L.
Venue
Preventive Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-03
Volume
168
Pages
107443
ISSN
0091-7435 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4319074038
Cited by
5
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1
FWCI
0.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Preventive Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Gun Ownership and Violence Research
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Homicide, Infanticide, and Child Abuse
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Suicide and Self-Harm Studies
Keywords
follow-up duration, survival analysis, United States
MeSH terms
Firearms, Humans, Population Surveillance, United States, Wounds, Gunshot, Age Distribution, Electronic Health Records

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review