New University of Illinois Helmet Study Released Today at the annualmeeting of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons

"http://www.forbes.com/forbeslife/health/feeds/hscout/2006/04/24/hscout532312.html"

SMS wrote:
"http://www.forbes.com/forbeslife/health/feeds/hscout/2006/04/24/hscout532312.html"

Here we go...

SMS wrote:
"http://www.forbes.com/forbeslife/health/feeds/hscout/2006/04/24/hscout532312.html"

No matter what one thinks of helmets, this is yet another instance
example not only of how the media so often misreports the news but also
how often researchers make claims in the media that they would never
make when publishing for peer review. The test used a four pound weight
(less than 2 kilos for our metric cousins) to simulate a human child's
head and found current bike helmets to significantly reduce the risks
of skull fracture. Okay, great, but how did the researchers and
reporters extrapolate that result to the risk reduction for adults
whose heads, by and large, weigh 3 or even 4 times that weight? Simple.
They asserted it with absolutely no evidence. Big surprise there, huh?

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Bob wrote:
SMS wrote:
"http://www.forbes.com/forbeslife/health/feeds/hscout/2006/04/24/hscout532312.html"

No matter what one thinks of helmets, this is yet another instance
example not only of how the media so often misreports the news but also
how often researchers make claims in the media that they would never
make when publishing for peer review. The test used a four pound weight
(less than 2 kilos for our metric cousins) to simulate a human child's
head and found current bike helmets to significantly reduce the risks
of skull fracture. Okay, great, but how did the researchers and
reporters extrapolate that result to the risk reduction for adults
whose heads, by and large, weigh 3 or even 4 times that weight? Simple.
They asserted it with absolutely no evidence. Big surprise there, huh?

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Hey the researcher was a resident. That means still a student. Give him
a break. OK give him a "C"

gds wrote:
Bob wrote:
SMS wrote:
"http://www.forbes.com/forbeslife/health/feeds/hscout/2006/04/24/hscout532312.html"
No matter what one thinks of helmets, this is yet another instance
example not only of how the media so often misreports the news but also
how often researchers make claims in the media that they would never
make when publishing for peer review. The test used a four pound weight
(less than 2 kilos for our metric cousins) to simulate a human child's
head and found current bike helmets to significantly reduce the risks
of skull fracture. Okay, great, but how did the researchers and
reporters extrapolate that result to the risk reduction for adults
whose heads, by and large, weigh 3 or even 4 times that weight? Simple.
They asserted it with absolutely no evidence. Big surprise there, huh?

Hey the researcher was a resident. That means still a student. Give him
a break. OK give him a "C"

No, when he calls himself "Dr. X" and leads with spurious results,
that's a fallacious appeal to authority. It's a whacked-together job
for a popular publication that shouldn't get him any professional
brownie points, and certainly shouldn't change any informed opinions
either way.

But in the real world, if it shows up with a "neurological resident Dr.
X" by-line on printed paper, somebody will believe it, and it'll waste
lots of other people's time pointing out how poorly the "experiment" was
designed and conducted for years.

Pat

OK but for most of us a "C" in graduate school wasn't passing. Of
course, a resident doesn't really get grades in the same way.
Actualy, this is a very good example of what happens when clinicians
get involved in research without rigorous training in research methods.

Read the study--not just the thread of negative responses. The method used
was reasonable, and it demonstrated a significant reduction in impact forces
through the use of the helmets tested.

Leo Lichtman wrote:
Read the study--not just the thread of negative responses. The
method used was reasonable, and it demonstrated a significant
reduction in impact forces through the use of the helmets tested.

You posted this as a reply to me, and all I said was "Here we go..."

Told ya so!

Leo Lichtman wrote:
Read the study--not just the thread of negative responses. The method used
was reasonable, and it demonstrated a significant reduction in impact forces
through the use of the helmets tested.

The method was "reasonable" for answering a very narrowly defined set
of questions. It was not reasonable to make the inferences attributed
to the lead author. I happen to be a helmet supporter. But I also
beleive that research protocols have to be properly constructed to
answer the questions being studied.

The main failure that I see is that the study was designed to study the
utility of helmets on children. Experts can then debate how reasonable
the study design was for the purpose of answering that question.
Extrapolating from such a study to the efficacy of helmets for adults
simply does not follow.

Again, I believe helmets are good thing--I just don't think that from
what was presented in the article that all the conclusions being
presented necessarily follow.

Leo Lichtman wrote:
Read the study--not just the thread of negative responses. The method used
was reasonable, and it demonstrated a significant reduction in impact forces
through the use of the helmets tested.

Yes, this was the key result of the study. They wanted to test whether
or not a helmet prevented an injury to a child's head, in the event of a
head impact accident.

Of course this study doesn't address the likelihood of a head impact
injury occurring in the first place, which I think everyone agrees is
quite small.