Advertisement

Evidence bicycle helmets mitigate intra-cranial injury is not controversial

  • J. Olivier
  • P. Creighton
  • C. T. Mason
Letter to the Editor

A recently published article questions the protective effect of bicycle helmets against intra-cranial injury [1]. In a case–control study design, Joseph and colleagues analyze data from cycling presentations from a collision or fall to a level 1 trauma center with an initial head computed tomography (CT) scan.

There are several inconsistencies and analytic errors in the analysis by Joseph and colleagues. This includes (1) a selection bias by limiting presentations to cyclists with a suspected head injury, (2) statistical results for intra-cranial hemorrhage that could not have arisen from the reported data, (3) failure to analyze intra-cranial injury as defined by the authors, (4) over-reliance on pvalues and the fallacy of accepting the null hypothesis, (5) simple numerical errors, and (6) incorrect reporting of previous literature. We discuss each of these issues in turn. When it is possible to correct these errors using the data reported, we have re-analyzed the data. The lead...

Keywords

Lead Author Neck Injury Report Odds Ratio Lower Confidence Limit Initial Head 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Jake Olivier, Prudence Creighton and C. Thomas Mason declare they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. 1.
    Joseph B, Pandit V, Zangbar B, et al. Rethinking bicycle helmets as a preventive tool: a 4-year review of bicycle injuries. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2014;41:729–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Marshall SW. Injury case–control studies using “other injuries” as controls. Epidemiology. 2008;19:277–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kaushik R, Krisch IM, Schroeder DR, Flick R, Nemergut ME. Pediatric bicycle-related head injuries: a population-based study in a county without a helmet law. Injury Epidemiol. 2015;2:16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Attewell RG, Glase K, McFadden M. Bicycle helmet efficacy: a meta-analysis. Accid Anal Prev. 2001;33:345–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bambach MR, Mitchell RJ, Grzebieta RH, Olivier J. The effectiveness of helmet in bicycle collisions with motor vehicles: a case–control study. Accid Anal Prev. 2013;53:78–88.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dorsch M, Woodward A, Somers R. Do bicycle safety helmets reduce the severity of head injuries in real crashes? Accid Anal Prev. 1987;19:183–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shafi S, Gilbert JC, Loghmanee F. Impact of bicycle helmet safety legislation on children admitted to a regional pediatric trauma center. J Pediatr Surg. 1998;33(2):317–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Elvik R. Corrigendum to: “publication bias and time-trend bias in meta-analysis of bicycle helmet efficacy: a re-analysis of Attewell, Glase and McFadden, 2001”. Acc Anal Prev. 2013;60:245–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sullivan GM, Feinn R. Using effect size—or why the p value is not enough. J Grad Med Ed. 2012;4:279–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Walters SJ. Consultants’ forum: should post hoc sample size calculations be done? Pharm Stat. 2009;8:163–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Mathematics and StatisticsUniversity of New South WalesSydneyAustralia
  2. 2.University of ArizonaTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations