de Boer et al. criticize the conclusions in our 2020 paper on the validity of Excited Delirium Syndrome (ExDS) as "egregiously misleading." Our conclusion was that there "is no existing evidence that indicates that ExDS is inherently lethal in the absence of aggressive restraint." The basis for de Boer and colleague's criticism of our paper is that the ExDS literature does not provide an unbiased view of the lethality of the condition, and therefore the true epidemiologic features of ExDS cannot be determined from what has been published. The criticism is unrelated to the goals or methods of the study, however. Our stated purpose was to investigate "how the term ExDS has evolved in the literature and been endowed with a uniquely lethal quality," and whether there is "evidence for ExDS as a unique cause of a death that would have occurred regardless of restraint, or a label used when a restrained and agitated person dies, and which erroneously directs attention away from the role of restraint in explaining the death." We cannot fathom how de Boer et al. missed this clearly stated description of the study rationale, or why they would endorse a series of fallacious and meaningless claims that gave the appearance that they failed to grasp the basic design of the study. We do acknowledge and thank these authors for pointing out 3 minor citation errors and an equally minor table formatting error (neither of which altered the reported results and conclusions in the slightest), however.
Keywords: Agitated Delirium; Bias; Circular Reasoning; Excited Delirium; Logical Fallacy.
© 2023. The Author(s).