MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Vision screening of older drivers for preventing road traffic injuries and fatalities

2014· review· en· W2167782396 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOlder Adults Driving Studies
Canadian institutionsCommunity Based Research CentreUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransport engineeringRoad trafficMedical emergencyForensic engineeringMedicineEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Demographic data in North America, Europe, Asia, Australia and New Zealand suggest a rapid growth in the number of persons over the age of 65 years as the baby boomer generation passes retirement age. As older adults make up an increasing proportion of the population, they are an important consideration when designing future evidence-based traffic safety policies, particularly those that lead to restrictions or cessation of driving. Research has shown that cessation of driving among older drivers can lead to negative emotional consequences such as depression and loss of independence. Older adults who continue to drive tend to do so less frequently than other demographic groups and are more likely to be involved in a road traffic crash, possibly due to what is termed the "low mileage bias". Available research suggests that older driver crash risk estimates based on traditional exposure measures are prone to bias. When annual driving distances are taken in to consideration, older drivers with low driving distances have an increased crash risk, while those with average or high driving distances tend to be safer drivers when compared to other age groups. In addition, older drivers with lower distance driving tend to drive in urban areas which, due to more complex and demanding traffic patterns, tend to be more accident-prone. Failure to control for actual annual driving distances and driving locations among older drivers is referred to as "low mileage bias" in older driver mobility research. It is also important to note that older drivers are more vulnerable to serious injury and death in the event of a traffic crash due to changes in physiology associated with normal ageing. Vision, cognition, and motor functions or skills (e.g., strength, co-ordination, and flexibility) are three key domains required for safe driving. To drive safely, an individual needs to be able to see road signs, road side objects, traffic lights, roadway markings, other vulnerable road users, and other vehicles on the road, among many other cues-all while moving, and under varying light and weather conditions. It is equally important that drivers must have appropriate peripheral vision to monitor objects and movement to identify possible threats in the driving environment. It is, therefore, not surprising that there is agreement among researchers that vision plays a significant role in driving performance. Several age-related processes/conditions impair vision, thus it follows that vision testing of older drivers is an important road safety issue. The components of visual function essential for driving are acuity, static acuity, dynamic acuity, visual fields, visual attention, depth perception, and contrast sensitivity. These indices are typically not fully assessed by licensing agencies. Also, current vision screening regulations and cut-off values required to pass a licensing test vary from country to country. Although there is a clear need to develop evidence-based and validated tools for vision screening for driving, the effectiveness of existing vision screening tools remains unclear. This represents an important and highly warranted initiative to increase road safety worldwide. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of vision screening interventions for older drivers to prevent road traffic injuries and fatalities. SEARCH METHODS: For the update of this review we searched the Cochrane Injuries Group's Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), PsycINFO (OvidSP) and ISI Web of Science: (CPCI-S & SSCI). The searches were conducted up to 26 September 2013. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled before and after studies comparing vision screening to non-screening of drivers aged 55 years and older, and which assessed the effect on road traffic crashes, injuries, fatalities and any involvement in traffic law violations. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the reference lists for eligible articles and independently assessed the articles for inclusion against the criteria. If suitable trials had been available, two review authors would have independently extracted data using a standardised extraction form. MAIN RESULTS: No studies were found that met the inclusion criteria for this review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Most countries require a vision screening test for the renewal of an individual's driver's licence. There is, however, lack of methodologically sound studies to assess the effects of vision screening tests on subsequent motor vehicle crash reduction. There is a need to develop valid and reliable tools of vision screening that can predict driving performance.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.147
GPT teacher head0.479
Teacher spread0.332 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it