ArticleForensic science, medicine, and pathology2014
An evaluation of two conducted electrical weapons using a swine comparative cardiac safety model.
Article in Forensic science, medicine, and pathology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A comparative brief on conducted electrical weapon safety.Wiener medizinische Wochenschrift (1946) · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Arrest-related deaths proximate to the use of a conducted electrical weapon (CEW) continue to generate controversy despite a better understanding of the multi-factorial nature of many of these deaths. With the rapid adoption of this technology by law enforcement, and the proliferation of companies entering the marketplace, it is important to have a method to assess the relative safety of these weapons. We had previously developed a model to assess the relative cardiac safety of CEWs. In this study, we use this model to compare the TASER X2 and the Karbon Arms MPID. Our results suggest that the TASER X2 may have an improved cardiac safety margin over the Karbon Arms MPID as determined by a smaller area of cardiac pacing on the anterior chest in our model. This model seems to offer a reproducible means of comparing the cardiac effects of CEWs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24895072What 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.