Injury rates following conducted electrical weapons and other less-lethal force modalities in real-life police settings: a comparative literature review.

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, LEGAL
Mark Nielsen, Julie Munkholm, Jytte Banner, Carl Johan Wingren
{"title":"Injury rates following conducted electrical weapons and other less-lethal force modalities in real-life police settings: a comparative literature review.","authors":"Mark Nielsen, Julie Munkholm, Jytte Banner, Carl Johan Wingren","doi":"10.1007/s12024-025-01020-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":12449,"journal":{"name":"Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12024-025-01020-9","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, LEGAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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.

在现实生活中的警察环境中,电子武器和其他非致命性武力模式的伤害率:比较文献综述。
本研究的目的是对现实生活中警察干预中暴露于低致命性武力模式后受试者受伤的比率和风险比进行排名。目的是观察导电电武器(CEW)的使用是否属于低风险的武力方式,其不良健康结果的风险与暴露于其他低致命方式(如物理武力、警棍、油树脂辣椒喷雾和警犬)相似。使用科学数据库PubMed、Embase和Web of Science进行文献检索。我们根据质量对纳入的文章进行评分,并计算损伤率的加权平均值。我们发现19篇文章报告了在现实生活中暴露于常见的非致命性武力模式后受伤的比率或风险比。OC喷雾剂似乎具有最低的受试者伤害率。CEW后受试者损伤的结果不明确,但与警棍和犬相比似乎较低。然而,由于方法学的局限性,研究结果应谨慎解释。确定的研究在设计上是异质的,这限制了得出的结论。总的来说,有迹象表明,当使用OC喷雾时,受伤的风险最低。与警棍和犬相比,使用CEW后受试者受伤的比率较低。进一步的研究使用系统的方法来登记伤害是必要的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology
Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology MEDICINE, LEGAL-PATHOLOGY
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
5.60%
发文量
114
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology encompasses all aspects of modern day forensics, equally applying to children or adults, either living or the deceased. This includes forensic science, medicine, nursing, and pathology, as well as toxicology, human identification, mass disasters/mass war graves, profiling, imaging, policing, wound assessment, sexual assault, anthropology, archeology, forensic search, entomology, botany, biology, veterinary pathology, and DNA. Forensic Science, Medicine, and Pathology presents a balance of forensic research and reviews from around the world to reflect modern advances through peer-reviewed papers, short communications, meeting proceedings and case reports.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信