|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Fundamental error in "Trends in serious head injuries..." Cook andSheikh 2003Fundamental error in "Trends in serious head injuries..." Cookand Sheikh 2003
I sent the following to "Injury prevention on-line" over a week ago, but
it shows no sign of being published and my follow-up email has not been answered. I guess someone might as well see it, typo and all. Isn't the internet great for vanity publishing? Neither Cook nor Sheikh replied to my email, either. Their original article, to which this refers, can be found on http://ip.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/9/3/266 ----------------------------------------------------------------- "Fundamental error in "Trends in serious head injuries..." Cook and Sheikh 2003" ----------------------------------------------------------------- !-- article ID: 9/3/266 -- P The main conclusion of Cook and Sheikh (2003), that a bicycle helmet prevents 60% of head injuries, is incorrect due to a fundamental error in the way they have treated their percentages. A correct analysis demonstrates unequivocally that there must be major confounding factors in their data set that they have failed to take into account, and therefore any estimate of helmet effectiveness is purely speculative. P Assuming that their basic analysis of the data is correct (although the numbers they quote in the text do not actually appear to match the figure plotted), they arrive at a figure of a 3.6% for the reduction in the head injury (HI) rate for cyclists, over and above the "background" reduction that pedestrians have also seen. They assume that this drop in HI is due to increased helmet-wearing. However, this reduction is presented in terms of the number of percentage points, and relative to the baseline value of 27.9% HI for cyclists in 1995-6 it actually represents a 3.6/27.9 = 13% drop in the HI rate. P The decrease in the number of helmetless cyclists over the same interval is 5.8 percentage points from a baseline of 84% unhelmeted, giving the percentage drop as 5.8/84 = 7%. Cook and Sheikh calculate helmet effectiveness to be given by the ratio 3.6/5.8 = 60%. However the correct expression to use is 13/7 = 186%. In other words, "helmet effectiveness" is so high that each helmet does not just save its wearer, but a non-wearer too. At this rate, head injuries would be eliminated completely if just a little over half of all cyclists wore them! This is clearly ludicrous. P A more reasonable conclusion to draw from this would be that there are some other factors that are responsible for the large drop in HI rate, and therefore any attempt to attribute some part of the total 30% (8.49/27.9) change to the provably marginal impact of a very small number of extra helmet wearers is at best highly speculative and fraught with inaccuracy. P What makes this all the more poignant is the fact that the authors have recently produced a book entitled "Basic skills in statistics"! P James Annan |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Gels vs Gatorade | Ken | Techniques | 145 | August 3rd 04 06:56 PM |