ReviewForensic science, medicine, and pathology2025
Injury rates following conducted electrical weapons and other less-lethal force modalities in real-life police settings: a comparative literature review.
Review in Forensic science, medicine, and pathology, 2025. 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.
- Electrical effect on probe wounds after long time exposure with a new generation conducted electrical weapon (Taser T10Forensic science, medicine, and pathology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to rank the rate and risk ratio of subject injury following exposure to less-lethal force modalities in real-life police interventions. The purpose was to observe whether the use of conductive electrical weapons (CEW) qualifies as a low-risk modality of force, with a similar risk of adverse health outcomes as exposure to other less-lethal modalities, such as physical force, baton, oleoresin capsicum (OC) spray, and canine. A literature search was conducted using the scientific databases PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science. We rated the included articles based on quality and calculated the weighted means of injury rates. We found 19 articles reporting the rate or risk ratio of injury following exposure to common less-lethal force modalities in real-life settings. OC spray appeared to have the lowest rate of subject injury. The outcome for subject injury following CEW was ambiguous but seemed to be lower in comparison to baton and canine. However, the findings should be interpreted with caution due to methodological limitations. The identified studies were heterogeneous in design, which limits the conclusions drawn. In general, there was an indication that the risk of injury is lowest when OC spray is used. The rate of subject injury following the use of CEW is lower compared to baton and canine. Further research using a systematic approach to the registration of injuries is warranted.
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.