Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research (Nivel), Utrecht, the Netherlands.
ARQ National Psychotrauma Centre, Diemen, the Netherlands.
JAMA Netw Open. 2021 Feb 1;4(2):e2037209. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.37209.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
作为警察使用的一种非致命武力选择，电击枪（CEWs）被广泛使用。然而，根据国际同行评审文献中严格评估的科学证据，目前尚不清楚 CEW 暴露对人类可能产生的健康风险。
综合并系统评估不同型号 CEW 暴露与急性和慢性不良条件之间关联的已发表证据的强度。
根据预先注册的综述方案，文献检索策略基于对 2000 年 1 月 1 日至 2020 年 4 月 24 日期间发表的评论的搜索，检索了 PubMed、MEDLINE、EMBASE、Web of Science、PsycINFO 和 Cochrane Library，以及相关的在线数据库和参考来源，例如最近出版物的参考部分。对研究的范围、相关性、方法学偏见和质量进行了独立评估。纳入了人类研究的同行评审出版物，使用原始数据，并重点研究了泰瑟电击枪在执法中的使用。合格的研究以 CEW 暴露后作为因变量的明确界定的健康结果为研究目标。综述遵循系统评价和荟萃分析报告指南的相关部分。由于没有进行荟萃分析。
在筛选的 1081 个独特记录中，确定了 33 项相关研究，均为实验设计，且均在美国进行。11 项研究的偏倚风险较低，22 项研究的偏倚风险较高。研究集中于生理应激反应、心率、血压、心律失常或认知表现等结果。无论偏倚风险如何，除了飞镖造成的伤口外，这些研究报告的急性健康问题很少或没有。此外，没有研究长期结果。大多数研究都是在健康、身体状况良好的个体（例如警察）在受控环境中进行的，暴露时间较短（5 秒）。一半的研究，主要是那些偏倚风险较高的研究，至少部分由制造商资助。
根据综述研究的结果，目前可以估计 CEW 暴露导致不良健康结果的风险较低。然而，大多数综述研究都存在方法学上的局限性。考虑到招募的参与者不能代表通常遇到 CEW 部署的人群，因此无法得出关于潜在弱势群体或高危人群（例如受物质影响的人群）暴露结果的结论。
