Ahem ... helmet legislation

Forwarded from the Bikeqld list for the edification of passionate a.b-
ers:

New from the Cochrane Library - 'evidence for healthcare decision-
making'

http://www.mrw.interscience.wiley.co...401/frame.html

[Review]
Bicycle helmet legislation for the uptake of helmet use and prevention
of head injuries

A Macpherson and A Spinks


Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007 Issue 2 (Status: New)
Copyright © 2007 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley &
Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005401.pub2 This version first published
online: 18 April 2007 in Issue 2, 2007
Date of Most Recent Substantive Amendment: 29 January 2007

This record should be cited as: Macpherson A, Spinks A. Bicycle helmet
legislation for the uptake of helmet use and prevention of head
injuries. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007, Issue 2. Art.
No.: CD005401. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005401.pub2.

Donga Wrote:
Forwarded from the Bikeqld list for the edification of passionate a.b-
ers:

New from the Cochrane Library - 'evidence for healthcare decision-
making'

http://tinyurl.com/yt7ngg

[Review]
Bicycle helmet legislation for the uptake of helmet use and prevention
of head injuries

A Macpherson and A Spinks


Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007 Issue 2 (Status: New)
Copyright © 2007 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley &
Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005401.pub2 This version first published
online: 18 April 2007 in Issue 2, 2007
Date of Most Recent Substantive Amendment: 29 January 2007

This record should be cited as: Macpherson A, Spinks A. Bicycle helmet
legislation for the uptake of helmet use and prevention of head
injuries. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007, Issue 2. Art.
No.: CD005401. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005401.pub2.

I didn't see any mention of whether cycling levels per capita
increasing or decreasing post helmet-legislation had been taken in to
consideration. If it hasn't, then the study's worthless.


--
EuanB

Donga wrote:

Forwarded from the Bikeqld list for the edification of passionate a.b-
ers:

New from the Cochrane Library - 'evidence for healthcare decision-
making'

http://www.mrw.interscience.wiley.co...cles/CD005401/
frame.html

[Review] Bicycle helmet legislation for the uptake of helmet use and
prevention of head injuries

A Macpherson and A Spinks



Given the obvious conclusions, it looks like someone needs to publish a
few papers to satisfy their quota.

In aus.bicycle on Fri, 11 May 2007 08:32:23 +1000
EuanB wrote:

I didn't see any mention of whether cycling levels per capita
increasing or decreasing post helmet-legislation had been taken in to
consideration. If it hasn't, then the study's worthless.

The whole hting seemed useless because they said at the start that
they had bugger all data and couldn't compare like with like or, as
you say, get any sensible data on participation.

I'd be interested to know the current Vic data on participation.
Anecdotal evidence would be that cycling is increasing? And what
about helmet wearing, I see more cyclists now than I did
when I was commuting in the mid 90s but I also see more helmetless
ones. I can't tell if the proportions are the same, my memory isn't
that good!

But I do see more helmetless now than I saw when I restarted commuting
a year ago. Including couriers. Probably as many "no helmet visible"
implying they don't ever wear one as I see "helmet on bars or
backpack" implying they wear it sometimes.

I see them in the CBD and on the Bridge bikepath, and on the Cook's
River path. I don't see them on faster roads like Pyrmont Bridge, but
I see fewer cyclists generally on that part of my commute.

Zebee

Donga wrote:

Forwarded from the Bikeqld list for the edification of passionate a.b-
ers:

New from the Cochrane Library - 'evidence for healthcare decision-
making'


http://www.mrw.interscience.wiley.co...401/frame.html

[Review]
Bicycle helmet legislation for the uptake of helmet use and prevention
of head injuries

A Macpherson and A Spinks


Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007 Issue 2 (Status: New)
Copyright © 2007 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley &
Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005401.pub2 This version first published
online: 18 April 2007 in Issue 2, 2007
Date of Most Recent Substantive Amendment: 29 January 2007

This record should be cited as: Macpherson A, Spinks A. Bicycle helmet
legislation for the uptake of helmet use and prevention of head
injuries. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007, Issue 2. Art.
No.: CD005401. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005401.pub2.

After reading this abstract I actually have no idea of what the authors are
trying to say.
It is a great use of the English language; many words with no meaning

Peter

--
The Kiwi bird is very aptly New Zealand's national emblem.
It is a bird which cannot fly.
It only comes out at night.
It has nostrils at the end of its long beak, and
It is always poking its nose into things.

In article ,
EuanB wrote:

I didn't see any mention of whether cycling levels per capita
increasing or decreasing post helmet-legislation had been taken in to
consideration.

"There were no included studies reporting change in bicycle use or other
adverse consequences of legislation." That could mean no change was
found, or it could mean the studies didn't consider the issue.

--
Shane Stanley

Shane Stanley Wrote:
In article ,
EuanB wrote:

I didn't see any mention of whether cycling levels per capita
increasing or decreasing post helmet-legislation had been taken in to
consideration.

"There were no included studies reporting change in bicycle use or
other
adverse consequences of legislation." That could mean no change was
found, or it could mean the studies didn't consider the issue.


It's ambiguous language, I'm inclined to believe that it means they
didn't include any studies.


--
EuanB

Peter Keller Wrote:

After reading this abstract I actually have no idea of what the authors
are
trying to say.
It is a great use of the English language; many words with no meaning

Touché.


--
cfsmtb

EuanB Wrote:
It's ambiguous language, I'm inclined to believe that it means they
didn't include any studies.
It means that the studies that their initial literature searching found
did not reach a sufficiently high methodology standard with reference to
the Cochrane hierarchy (where randomised controlled trials reign
supreme, down to lowly case studies, etc.)

The Cochrane database is not original research - that is not it's
purpose. The Cochrane (and similar groups) undertake meta-analysis of
research data to interrogate the evidence for health care treatments,
interventions, and related claims. The meta-analysis is undertaken by
combining the data from smaller, well-structured research projects, in
an effort to explore the strength of claims.

Ali


--
alison_b

alison_b Wrote:
It means that the studies that their initial literature searching found
did not reach a sufficiently high methodology standard with reference
to the Cochrane hierarchy (where randomised controlled trials reign
supreme, down to lowly case studies, etc.)

The Cochrane database is not original research - that is not it's
purpose. The Cochrane (and similar groups) undertake meta-analysis of
research data to interrogate the evidence for health care treatments,
interventions, and related claims. The meta-analysis is undertaken by
combining the data from smaller, well-structured research projects, in
an effort to explore the strength of claims.

Ali

So for the less academically inclined (puts hand up) that means there
were no studies of sufficient merit so whether participation rates
increased or decreased has not been considered?


--
EuanB