Erratum to: Forensic Sci Med Pathol DOI 10.1007/s12024-013-9422-x
The authors would like to make a correction to the article. Currently, the article reads: “In our estimates, the risk of VF based on this data is 0.29 %. The consensus panel estimated the risk at 0.25 %, in close agreement. Even with cardiac capture, the risk of ventricular fibrillation from our data was 0.59 %.”
The risk is improperly stated as currently written since the risk, as reported in the Results section, was an upper limit risk. In addition, the NIJ document did not report a risk of VF, but rather risk of death during a TASER-related incident. To correctly state the risk from the study and to properly cite the NIJ, the article should read: “In our estimates, the risk of VF based on this data is no more than 0.29 %. The consensus panel estimated the risk of death in a TASER-related incident to be no more than 0.25 %, in close agreement. Even with cardiac capture, the risk of VF from our data was no more than 0.59 %.”
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The online version of the original article can be found under doi:10.1007/s12024-013-9422-x.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dawes, D.M., Ho, J.D., Moore, J.C. et al. Erratum to: An evaluation of two conducted electrical weapons and two probe designs using a swine comparative cardiac safety model. Forensic Sci Med Pathol 9, 343 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12024-013-9451-5
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12024-013-9451-5