MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3133290796 · doi:10.1101/2021.02.13.21251689

Pattern of Severity of Road Traffic Injuries Among Pedestrians in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review

2021· review· en· W3133290796 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Neeraj Sharma, Mohan Bairwa, Shiv Dutt Gupta, Daya Krishan Mangal

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic and Road Safety
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
KeywordsMedicineGlasgow Coma ScaleAbbreviated Injury ScaleInjury preventionRoad trafficPoison controlObservational studyInjury Severity ScoreOccupational safety and healthEnvironmental healthSurgeryTransport engineeringPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Background Low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) contribute about 93 per cent of road traffic injuries (RTIs) and deaths worldwide with a significant proportion of pedestrians (22 per cent). Various scales are used to assess the pattern of injury severity, which are useful in predicting the outcomes of RTIs. We conducted this systematic review to determine the pattern of RTI severity among pedestrians in LMICs. Methods We searched the electronic databases PubMed, CINHAL, CENTRAL, Web of Science, Scopus, EMBASE, ProQuest and SciELO, and examined the references of the selected studies. Original research articles published on the RTI severity among pedestrians in LMICs during 1997-2016 were eligible for this review. Quality of publications was assessed using an adapted Newcastle-Ottawa Scale of observational studies. Findings of this study were presented as a meta-summary. Results Five articles from 3 LMICs were eligible for the systematic review. Abbreviated Injury Score, Glasgow Coma Scale and Maxillofacial Injury Severity Score were used to assess the injury severity in the selected studies. In a multicentric study from China (2013), 21, 38 and 19 per cent pedestrians with head injuries had AIS scores 1-2, 3-4 and 5-6, respectively. In another study from China (2010), the proportion of AIS score 1-2 and AIS score 3 and above (serious to un-survivable) injuries occurred due to crash with sedan cars were 65 and 35 per cent, respectively. Such injuries due to minivan crashes were 49.5 per cent and 50.5 per cent, respectively. Two studies Ikeja, Nigeria (2014) and Elazig, Turkey (2009) presented, 24.5 and 32.5 per cent injured had a severe head injury (GCS < 8), respectively. In another study from Ibadan, Nigeria (2014), the severe maxillofacial injuries were seen in the victims of car/minibus pedestrian crashes 46 per cent, and 17 per cent had a fatal outcome. Conclusion A varied percent of pedestrians (24.5 to 57 percent) had road traffic injuries of serious to fatal nature, depending on type of collision and injury severity scale. This study pressed the need to conduct studies with a robust methodology on the pattern of RTI severity among pedestrians to guide the programme managers, researchers and policymakers in LMICs to formulate the policies and programmes to save the pedestrian lives. African relevance Prior RTI research reveals that pedestrians and cyclists were at the highest risk of fatality of in Sub-Saharan Africa, whereas motorcyclists had significantly higher fatality rates in Asian countries such as Malaysia and Thailand (1–3). Fifty-seven type of injury severity scoring systems have been developed to assess the injury severity for triage and timely decision making for patient treatment need, outcome prediction, quality of trauma care, and epidemiological research and evaluation (4,5). We found two studies from sub-Saharan Africa in this review which showed that severe pedestrian injuries ranged from 24.5 to 46 per cent of total pedestrian RTIs. Despite the findings of review affected by limited and variegated sample, it could be useful to guide for future research.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.008
Bibliometrics0.0140.015
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicTraffic and Road Safety→French-language works237,207→