ArticleForensic science, medicine, and pathology2013
An evaluation of two conducted electrical weapons and two probe designs using a swine comparative cardiac safety model.
Article in Forensic science, medicine, and pathology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- A comparative brief on conducted electrical weapon safety.Wiener medizinische Wochenschrift (1946) · 2019Review
- An evaluation of two conducted electrical weapons using a swine comparative cardiac safety model.Forensic science, medicine, and pathology · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite human laboratory and field studies that have demonstrated a reasonable safety profile for TASER brand conducted electrical weapons (CEW), the results of some swine studies and arrest related deaths temporal to the use of the CEWs continue to raise questions regarding cardiac safety. TASER International, Inc., has released a new CEW, the TASER X2, touted to have a better safety profile than its long-standing predecessor, the TASER X26. We have developed a model to assess the relative cardiac safety of CEWs and used it to compare the TASER X2 and the TASER X26. This safety model was also used to assess the relative safety of an experimental probe design as compared to the standard steel probe. Our results suggest that the TASER X2 has an improved safety margin over the TASER X26. The new probe design also has promise for enhanced cardiac safety, although may have some disadvantages when compared to the existing design which would make field use impractical.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.