ReviewForensic science, medicine, and pathology2015
TASER® conducted electrical weapons: misconceptions in the scientific/medical and other literature.
Review in Forensic science, medicine, and pathology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- Kinetic energy evolution and injury assessment of high-speed tear jets.Forensic science, medicine, and pathology · 2025Article
- Pain in human and non-human animals caused by electricity.The Canadian veterinary journal = La revue veterinaire canadienne · 2016Article
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
TASER(®) conducted electrical weapons (CEWs) have become an important law-enforcement tool. Controversial questions are often raised during discussion of some incidents in which the devices have been used. The main purpose of this paper is to point out some misconceptions about CEWs that have been published in the scientific/medical and other literature. This is a narrative review, using a multidisciplinary approach of analyzing reports from scientific/medical and other literature sources. In previous reports, durations of incapacitating effects and possible associations of CEWs with deaths-in-custody have often been overstated or exaggerated. Comparisons of CEW effects with "electrocution" are misleading. Clarification of these misconceptions may be important during policymaker decisions, practitioner operations, expert witness testimonies, and court proceedings. Despite misconceptions in the literature, CEWs can still be a valuable tool for law enforcement activities. Scientists, medical professionals, legal advisors, and investigators of police tactics should be aware of these misconceptions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25549958What 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.