The promotion of bicycle helmet use in children and youth: an overview of reviews
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Bicycle‐related head injuries are a common reason for paediatric emergency department visits. Helmets have been designed to reduce head injuries, and helmet use has been encouraged through mandatory helmet legislation and nonlegislation helmet promotion activities. Objectives To synthesize the evidence published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews regarding bicycle helmet use among children, including helmet effectiveness and methods to promote helmet use. Methods The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was searched for all systematic reviews where ‘bicycle*’ or ‘helmet’ appeared in title, abstract or keywords. Reviews were included if they examined paediatric data concerning head injuries among helmeted and nonhelmeted cyclists, helmet use or adverse consequences of helmets. Data pertaining to adults were excluded. Relevant data were extracted, entered into tables and synthesized using qualitative and quantitative methods. Main results Three systematic reviews were identified and included 21 observational studies and 14 experimental studies. The methodological quality was assessed in only two of the reviews: the quality was similar in studies examining legislative interventions and several weaknesses were identified in the nonlegislative interventions. Among children, helmet use resulted in a 63% reduction in medically reported head injuries [adjusted odds ratio (OR): 0.37; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.20, 0.66] and an 86% reduction in the odds of brain injuries (OR: 0.14; 95% CI: 0.05, 0.38). Enactment of mandatory helmet legislation for child cyclists reduced the odds of head injury hospitalizations by 45%, while the odds of head injury hospitalizations reduced by 27% among children in jurisdictions without legislation. There was a significant reduction in traumatic brain injury among children cycling after the passage of helmet legislation (OR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.76, 0.89); however, there was no significant decrease in other head and facial injuries post‐legislation (OR: 1.08; 95% CI: 0.90, 1.23). Legislation also resulted in a significant increase in the number of children observed wearing a helmet (prevalence ratio: 3.69; 95% CI: 2.65, 5.14). Compared with children who received no intervention, those who received nonlegislative helmet promotion activities had a significant increase in observed helmet wearing (OR: 2.08; 95% CI: 1.29, 3.34), self‐reported helmet wearing (OR: 3.27; 95% CI: 1.56, 6.87) and self‐reported helmet ownership (OR: 2.67; 95% CI: 0.89, 8.03). No adverse events were associated with helmet use among cyclists. Authors' conclusions Bicycle helmets appear to be an effective way to reduce head injuries among children. Interventions to increase helmet use may be effective, particularly community‐based, school‐based, and those that provide free helmets; however, no effect of the interventions on helmet use were reported in randomized controlled trials. Finally, helmet legislation appears to be effective in increasing helmet use and reducing head injuries. Copyright © 2011 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. The Cochrane Collaboration
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,007 | 0,032 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,006 | 0,006 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,012 | 0,013 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».