ReviewForensic science, medicine, and pathology2013
Blood lactate concentration after exposure to conducted energy weapons (including TASER® devices): is it clinically relevant?
Review 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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In previous studies, blood lactate concentration (BLac) consistently increased in anesthetized animals and in human subjects after exposures to TASER(®) conducted energy weapons (CEWs). Some have suggested the increased BLac would have detrimental consequences. In the current review, the following are evaluated: (a) the nature of muscle contractions due to CEWs, (b) general aspects of increased BLac, (c) previous studies of conventional neuromuscular electrical stimulation and CEW exposures, and (d) BLac in disease states. On the basis of these analyses, one can conclude that BLac, per se (independent of acidemia), would not be clinically relevant immediately after short-duration CEW applications, due to the short time course of any increase.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23605975What 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.