Helmets reduce bicycle-related head and facial injuries

Some reading if you are interested in cycle helmet research:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10796827


From the Cochrane Database Syst Rev.

(The Cochrane Collaboration is an international, independent,
not-for-profit organisation of over 27,000 contributors from more than
100 countries, dedicated to making up-to-date, accurate information
about the effects of health care readily available worldwide.)


Helmets for preventing head and facial injuries in bicyclists.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Each year, in the United states, approximately 900 persons
die from injuries due to bicycle crashes and over 500,000 persons are
treated in emergency departments. Head injury is by far the greatest
risk posed to bicyclists, comprising one-third of emergency department
visits, two-thirds of hospital admissions, and three-fourths of
deaths. Facial injuries to cyclists occur at a rate nearly identical
to that of head injuries. Although it makes inherent sense that
helmets would be protective against head injury, establishing the
real-world effectiveness of helmets is important. A number of
case-control studies have been conducted demonstrating the
effectiveness of bicycle helmets. Because of the magnitude of the
problem and the potential effectiveness of bicycle helmets, the
objective of this review is to determine whether bicycle helmets
reduce head, brain and facial injury for bicyclists of all ages
involved in a bicycle crash or fall.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether bicycle helmets reduce head, brain
and facial injury for bicyclists of all ages involved in a bicycle
crash or fall.

SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register,
MEDLINE, EMBASE, Sport, ERIC, NTIS, Expanded Academic Index, CINAHL,
PsycINFO, Occupational Safety and Health, and Dissertations Abstracts.
We checked reference lists of past reviews and review articles,
studies from government agencies in the United States, Europe and
Australia, and contacted colleagues from the International Society for
Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention, World Injury Network, CDC
funded Injury Control and Research Centers, and staff in injury
research agencies around the world.

SELECTION CRITERIA: Controlled studies that evaluated the effect of
helmet use in a population of bicyclists who had experienced a crash.
We required that studies have complete outcome ascertainment, accurate
exposure measurement, appropriate selection of the comparison group
and elimination or control of factors such as selection bias,
observation bias and confounding.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Five published studies met the selection
criteria. Two abstractors using a standard abstraction form
independently abstracted data. Odds ratios with 95% CI were calculated
for the protective effect of helmet for head and facial injuries.
Study results are presented individually. Head and brain injury
results were also summarized using meta-analysis techniques.

MAIN RESULTS: No randomized controlled trials were found. This review
identified five well conducted case control studies which met our
selection criteria. Helmets provide a 63%-88% reduction in the risk of
head, brain and severe brain injury for all ages of bicyclists.
Helmets provide equal levels of protection for crashes involving motor
vehicles (69%) and crashes from all other causes (68%). Injuries to
the upper and mid facial areas are reduced 65%. REVIEWER'S

CONCLUSIONS: Helmets reduce bicycle-related head and facial injuries
for bicyclists of all ages involved in all types of crashes including
those involving motor vehicles.



More details at :
http://mrw.interscience.wiley.com/co...855/frame.html

JMS wrote:
Some reading if you are interested in cycle helmet research:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10796827

Some reading if you are interested in cycle helmet research:
www.cyclehelmets.org

BugBear

On May 27, 12:10*pm, bugbear
wrote:
JMS wrote:
Some reading if you are interested in cycle helmet research:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10796827

Some reading if you are interested in cycle helmet research:www.cyclehelmets.org


Old Moore's Almanac might be better! I read one of the BHRF's hatchet
jobs on one of the pro-helmet studies, which showed a very significant
reduction in the percentage of serious head injuries for helmeted
riders (so no population effects) against non helmet wearers. The BHRF
argument was there was an almost insignificantly small possibility
(less than 5%) that the two results were not significantly different,
and in any case the helmets may may changed the behaviour of their
wearers, so that they where more likely to have an accident in the
first place.

Derek C

On May 27, 12:10*pm, bugbear
wrote:
JMS wrote:
Some reading if you are interested in cycle helmet research:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10796827

Some reading if you are interested in cycle helmet research:www.cyclehelmets.org

* *BugBear

Old Moore's Almanac might be better!

I read one of the BHRF's hatchet jobs on one of the pro-helmet
studies, which showed a very significant reduction in the percentage
of serious head injuries for helmeted riders (so no population
effects) against non helmet wearers. The BHRF argument was there was
an almost insignificantly small possibility (less than 5%) that the
two results were not significantly different, and in any case the
helmets may have changed the behaviour of their wearers, so that they
where more likely to have an accident in the first place.

Derek C

On Thu, 27 May 2010 12:10:56 +0100, bugbear
wrote:

JMS wrote:
Some reading if you are interested in cycle helmet research:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10796827

Some reading if you are interested in cycle helmet research:
www.cyclehelmets.org

BugBear


I've looked at that site - it appears to have been put together by a
bunch of school-children.

Did you know that it was originally set up with the message:

"Helmets are not beneficial to cyclists - unless the evidence forces
them to a dramatically different conclusion."

When you look at the site, you can see it really is very, very biased
: and still trying to push that same message.

Many thanks for the suggestion.

--
Many cyclists are proving the need for registration by their contempt for the Highway Code and laws.

The answer:
All cyclists over 16 to take compulsory test, have compulsory insurance, and be registered.
Registration number to be clearly visible on the back of mandatory hi-viz vest.
Habitual law breakers' cycles confiscated and crushed.
(With thanks to KeithT for the idea)

bugbear wrote:
JMS wrote:
Some reading if you are interested in cycle helmet research:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10796827

Some reading if you are interested in cycle helmet research:
www.cyclehelmets.org

BugBear

Thanks for the link.

The site has a FAQ page. Here are the (limited number of) questions posed
there, rhetorically or otherwise:

QUOTE: "How likely is head injury when cycling?"

OK, that's relevant - just.

QUOTE: "Are all head injuries a matter for concern?"

Is that relevant? The fact that the proprietors of the site don't regard head
injuries as worth protecting against cannot possibly be something that
researchers should take account of, can it?

QUOTE: "What evidence supports helmet use?"

Good, relevant question.

QUOTE: "What evidence is there that cycle helmets save lives?"

Relevant-ish, but put together in a weasel-ish way. Non-fatal head injuries
are worth protecting agaisnt, but the question is posed as they couldn't
possibly be. A nasty way to go about diverting attention from the issues.

QUOTE: "What evidence is there that cycle helmets reduce serious injury?"

Similar to the previous one, though not as bad, since this one does at least
suggest that serious head injuries (and not only fatal head injuries) might
be worth guarding against.

"QUOTE: Do helmet promotion and helmet laws affect cycle use?"

What is the relevance of that? None whatsoever.

QUOTE: "Is cycling without a helmet dangerous?"

Superficially relevant, though it could be subsumed under the (missing)
question "Does the wearing of head protection help prevent head injuries?".

I wonder why that - highly relevant - question is not in the FAQs? It must be
asked frequently.

QUOTE: "What is the balance of advantage?"

Doesn't sound all that relevant, does it?

QUOTE: "What is the cost-benefit of helmet use?"

OK-ish.

QUOTE: "What is the most effective way to make cycling safer?"

Totally irrelevant. It's analagous to "Why do I have to have good tread on my
car tyres and brakes kept properly maintained when road safety is already
addressed by breathalyser legislation?".

QUOTE: "If car occupants must wear seat belts, why shouldn't cyclists wear
helmets?"

Totally irrelevant.

Derek C wrote:
On May 27, 12:10 pm, bugbear
wrote:
JMS wrote:
Some reading if you are interested in cycle helmet research:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10796827
Some reading if you are interested in cycle helmet research:www.cyclehelmets.org


Old Moore's Almanac might be better! I read one of the BHRF's hatchet
jobs on one of the pro-helmet studies, which showed a very significant
reduction in the percentage of serious head injuries for helmeted
riders (so no population effects) against non helmet wearers. The BHRF
argument was there was an almost insignificantly small possibility
(less than 5%) that the two results were not significantly different,
and in any case the helmets may may changed the behaviour of their
wearers, so that they where more likely to have an accident in the
first place...

....as though that were a bad thing!

On May 26, 9:02*pm, JMS wrote:

SELECTION CRITERIA: Controlled studies that evaluated the effect of
helmet use in a population of bicyclists who had experienced a crash.
We required that studies have complete outcome ascertainment, accurate
exposure measurement, appropriate selection of the comparison group
and elimination or control of factors such as selection bias,
observation bias and confounding.


Hmm, as most of the papers they included were written by themselves,
it's
not really a surprise that they found out what they admit is "inherent
sense"

JMS wrote:
On Thu, 27 May 2010 12:10:56 +0100, bugbear
wrote:

JMS wrote:
Some reading if you are interested in cycle helmet research:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10796827
Some reading if you are interested in cycle helmet research:
www.cyclehelmets.org

BugBear


I've looked at that site - it appears to have been put together by a
bunch of school-children.

Do you have a decent reference for this opinion - a peer
reviewed paper for example?

I'm afraid I can't just take your opinions
for things, even if they were to be well reasoned.

BugBear

On 27 May, 13:16, Derek C wrote:
On May 27, 12:10*pm, bugbear
wrote:

JMS wrote:
Some reading if you are interested in cycle helmet research:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10796827

Some reading if you are interested in cycle helmet research:www.cyclehelmets.org

* *BugBear

Old Moore's Almanac might be better!

I read one of the BHRF's hatchet jobs on one of the pro-helmet
studies, which showed a very significant reduction in the percentage
of serious head injuries for helmeted riders (so no population
effects) against non helmet wearers. The BHRF argument was there was
an almost insignificantly small possibility (less than 5%) that the
two results were not significantly different, and in any case the
helmets may have changed the behaviour of their wearers, so that they
where more likely to have an accident in the first place.

Derek C

And another of the myriad of wonderful statements on the same site,
where they've reviewed a paper which found helmets effective -

Title:-The effects of bicycling helmets in preventing significant
bicycle-related injuries in children

Conclusion:-The risk of serious head injury was significantly greater
when a helmet was not worn.

Criticism:-'It is not clear if helmets protect against non-serious
injuries.'


Toom