ReviewWiener medizinische Wochenschrift (1946)2019
A comparative brief on conducted electrical weapon safety.
Review in Wiener medizinische Wochenschrift (1946), 2019. 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.
- Preventing smartphone induction of magnet mode in cardiac implantable electronic devices.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The variety and high number of published research articles on conducted electrical weapons (CEW) provides a detailed, yet in some parts inconclusive overview of medical aspects of CEW. Due to different research approaches and the use of dissimilar test subjects, an assessment of possible health risks of CEW is limited. The present work provides a brief on CEW safety based on currently available animal, computer and human research data. Using the medical database PubMed, articles published on this topic are critically evaluated and compared with each other. Special focuses are the differences and similarities of human and animal research as well as computer simulation programs. The authors explain why some studies are more reliable than others and give their expert opinion on the safety of CEW. The body of data that have been reviewed provides reasonable support for the safety of CEW.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29392503What 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.