ReviewEye (London, England)2024
Risks and regulation of rubber scattershot in Switzerland: a narrative review.
Review in Eye (London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Multiple kinetic impact projectiles (KIPs) are responsible for most eye injuries by crowd-control weapons. This review aims to outline an underreported, ongoing series of eye injuries by rubber scattershot in Switzerland, and to relate current knowledge about thresholds for lasting visual loss to the energy limits set on KIPs in crowd control, by way of a retrospective compilation of cases from publicly available records and a review of the pertinent literature. Scattershot can cause irreversible visual loss. Since 1980, there have been 36 known cases of eye injuries by rubber pellets in Switzerland. In 2023, the incidence was higher here than at the peak of protests in France. KIPs were originally cleared for use in crowd control at kinetic and area-normalised energies assumed to lie below the threshold for ocular penetration. However, closed globe injuries suffice to cause permanent visual loss. Lower energy thresholds for lasting damage have been confirmed by the newer literature on paintballs, airbags, air guns and toys. These values may differ in vivo versus in vitro, and in humans versus in animals. There is no clear consensus on how best to predict loss of vision. Underreporting the risks of crowd-control weapons may contribute to their prolonged and increasingly liberal use. Regulations should consider what is known on energy thresholds for permanent visual loss. It is critical for ophthalmologists to be involved in the evaluation and monitoring of eye injuries caused by projectiles, including KIPs and toys. An interdisciplinary approach could help to elucidate damage thresholds.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.