Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33576818›Full record

SynthesisJAMA network open2021

Human Health Risks of Conducted Electrical Weapon Exposure: A Systematic Review.

Christos Baliatsas, Jenny Gerbecks, Michel L A Dückers, C Joris Yzermans

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in JAMA network open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Emergency department medical care during civil unrest: a narrative review.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Less-Lethal Weapons and Civilian Injury in Police Use of Force Encounters: A Multi-agency Analysis.Journal of urban health : bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine · 2025
    Article
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Christos BaliatsasNetherlands Institute for Health Services Research (Nivel), Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Jenny GerbecksNetherlands Institute for Health Services Research (Nivel), Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Michel L A DückersNetherlands Institute for Health Services Research (Nivel), Utrecht, the Netherlands.
C Joris YzermansNetherlands Institute for Health Services Research (Nivel), Utrecht, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Conducted electrical weapons (CEWs) are used broadly as a less-lethal force option for police officers. However, there is no clear picture of the possible health risks in humans on the basis of rigorously assessed scientific evidence from the international peer-reviewed literature. Objective: To synthesize and systematically evaluate the strength of published evidence for an association between exposure to different models of CEWs and adverse acute as well as chronic conditions. Evidence Review: Following a preregistered review protocol, the literature search strategy was based on a search of reviews published between January 1, 2000, and April 24, 2020, of PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library, as well as relevant online databases and bibliographic sources, such as reference sections of recent publications. The identified studies were independently assessed in terms of scope, relevance, methodologic bias, and quality. Peer-reviewed publications of human studies were included, using original data and with a focus on the use of taser CEWs in the context of law enforcement. Eligible studies examined clearly defined health outcomes as dependent variables following exposure to a CEW. The review followed the relevant sections of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses reporting guideline. A meta-analysis could not be conducted. Findings: Of the 1081 unique records screened, 33 relevant studies were identified, all of them of experimental design and conducted in the US. Eleven studies had a low risk of bias and 22 had a higher bias risk. Studies focused on outcomes such as physiologic stress responses, heart rate, blood pressure, arrhythmias, or cognitive performance. Independently of bias risk, the studies reported few or no acute health problems, apart from the wounds caused by the darts. Furthermore, no long-term outcomes were studied. Most of the studies were performed on healthy, physically fit individuals (eg, police officers) in a controlled setting, with short exposure duration (5 seconds). Half of the studies, mainly those with a higher risk of bias, were at least partly funded by the manufacturer. Conclusions and Relevance: Based on the findings of the reviewed studies, the risk for adverse health outcomes due to CEW exposure can be currently estimated as low. However, most of the reviewed studies had methodologic limitations. Considering that recruited participants were not representative of the population that usually encounters a CEW deployment, it is not possible to draw conclusions regarding exposure outcomes in potentially vulnerable populations or high-risk groups, such as those under the influence of substances.

Indexed as

WeaponsAcidosis, LacticArrhythmias, CardiacBlood PressureChronic DiseaseCognitionConducted Energy Weapon InjuriesHealthy VolunteersHeart RateHumansHypertensionPoliceResearch Support as TopicRisk AssessmentTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID33576818
PMCPMC7881359

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.