New study finds there "was no difference in mortality between helmeted and non-helmeted"

This sub-forum all discussions about this "lively" subject. All topics that are substantially about helmets will be moved here, if not placed here correctly in the first place.
1982john
Posts: 424
Joined: 3 Nov 2012, 9:29pm
Contact:

New study finds there "was no difference in mortality between helmeted and non-helmeted"

Postby 1982john » 14 Feb 2019, 9:27am

https://t.co/N1pgGJFpB2?amp=1

Lots going on here but it shows some fascinating results ie

The prevalence of significant head trauma was 35% in the group of patients with helmet and 34% in the group without helmets

User avatar
Wanlock Dod
Posts: 499
Joined: 28 Sep 2016, 5:48pm

Re: New study finds there "was no difference in mortality between helmeted and non-helmeted"

Postby Wanlock Dod » 14 Feb 2019, 9:50am

It should also be noted that the prevalence of all significant trauma was 26% in the group of patients with helmet and 20% in the group without helmets (p-value=0.048). The overall mortality was 1%. There was no difference in mortality between helmeted and non-helmeted patients.

Be safe be seen kids :D

thelawnet
Posts: 2199
Joined: 27 Aug 2010, 12:56am

Re: New study finds there "was no difference in mortality between helmeted and non-helmeted"

Postby thelawnet » 17 Feb 2019, 2:30am

Wanlock Dod wrote:
It should also be noted that the prevalence of all significant trauma was 26% in the group of patients with helmet and 20% in the group without helmets (p-value=0.048). The overall mortality was 1%. There was no difference in mortality between helmeted and non-helmeted patients.


So conclusive proof (at 95% confidence) that helmets cause injuries. :lol:

User avatar
bovlomov
Posts: 3994
Joined: 5 Apr 2007, 7:45am
Contact:

Re: New study finds there "was no difference in mortality between helmeted and non-helmeted"

Postby bovlomov » 17 Feb 2019, 9:23am

thelawnet wrote:
Wanlock Dod wrote:
It should also be noted that the prevalence of all significant trauma was 26% in the group of patients with helmet and 20% in the group without helmets (p-value=0.048). The overall mortality was 1%. There was no difference in mortality between helmeted and non-helmeted patients.


So conclusive proof (at 95% confidence) that helmets cause injuries. :lol:

I'm confused. Since reading an earlier study, which proved that helmets reduced elbow injuries, I've been wearing helmets on my elbows. And it has worked.

But this new study seems to prove that helmets cause elbow injuries.

I was going to fix my brakes this morning, but to hell with that! It's more important that I get to the bottom of this statistical conundrum.

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 13697
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent, car park of England

Re: New study finds there "was no difference in mortality between helmeted and non-helmeted"

Postby gaz » 17 Feb 2019, 9:48am

bovlomov wrote:But this new study seems to prove that helmets cause elbow injuries.

That old chestnut again, correlation is not causation :wink: .

User avatar
bovlomov
Posts: 3994
Joined: 5 Apr 2007, 7:45am
Contact:

Re: New study finds there "was no difference in mortality between helmeted and non-helmeted"

Postby bovlomov » 17 Feb 2019, 10:25am

gaz wrote:
bovlomov wrote:But this new study seems to prove that helmets cause elbow injuries.

That old chestnut again, correlation is not causation :wink: .

But that's just words. I'm talking about common sense.

AndyK
Posts: 794
Joined: 17 Aug 2007, 2:08pm

Re: New study finds there "was no difference in mortality between helmeted and non-helmeted"

Postby AndyK » 20 Feb 2019, 10:40am

Sorry, wandering off helmets a bit, but the paper's introduction says:
The majority of bicycle injuries require hospitalization

It doesn't seem to provide a reference to support this statement.

Now I know the dangers of relying on personal experience, but does anyone believe this? Are there any stats to support it at all? Leaving aside the definition of "hospitalization" (which I thought meant actual admission to hospital, not just a day-trip to A&E to check that a bone isn't broken) I would have thought the vast majority of cyclist injuries are minor cuts, sprains, bruises and grazes that never get anywhere near a hospital.

User avatar
Pastychomper
Posts: 300
Joined: 14 Nov 2017, 11:14am
Location: Caithness

Re: New study finds there "was no difference in mortality between helmeted and non-helmeted"

Postby Pastychomper » 20 Feb 2019, 10:56am

AndyK wrote:Sorry, wandering off helmets a bit, but the paper's introduction says:
The majority of bicycle injuries require hospitalization

It doesn't seem to provide a reference to support this statement.

Now I know the dangers of relying on personal experience, but does anyone believe this? Are there any stats to support it at all? Leaving aside the definition of "hospitalization" (which I thought meant actual admission to hospital, not just a day-trip to A&E to check that a bone isn't broken) I would have thought the vast majority of cyclist injuries are minor cuts, sprains, bruises and grazes that never get anywhere near a hospital.


I can't see the paper from here, could it be a typo, or maybe the author was referring to a specific subset of bicycle injuries?

I'd be surprised if cycling injuries deviated much from the "accident triangle", though I suppose they might if you only counted injuries caused by collisions on dual carriageways outside rush-hours, for example.
Everyone's ghast should get a good flabbering now and then.
--Ole Boot

pwa
Posts: 10236
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

Re: New study finds there "was no difference in mortality between helmeted and non-helmeted"

Postby pwa » 20 Feb 2019, 11:09am

The usual problem exists, i.e. no way of knowing whether the helmeted / non-helmeted groups who did not feel the need to attend hospital were the same or different. To make any judgement at all you would need to actually look at all the accidents, not just those that resulted in a hospital visit.

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 13741
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: New study finds there "was no difference in mortality between helmeted and non-helmeted"

Postby mjr » 20 Feb 2019, 11:43am

AndyK wrote:Sorry, wandering off helmets a bit, but the paper's introduction says:
The majority of bicycle injuries require hospitalization

It doesn't seem to provide a reference to support this statement.

Now I know the dangers of relying on personal experience, but does anyone believe this?

It depends on how you define "injuries" too. I think there's a bunch of references to support a bunch of claims, marked as "[9-12]". I suspect the source for that statement is "11. Hamann C, Peek-asa C, Lynch CF, Ramirez M, Torner J (2013) Burden of hospitalizations for bicycling injuries by motor vehicle involvement: United States, 2002 to 2009. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 75(5): 870-876" which would mean it's only from US collisions with motorists, which could be true, but I think you're correct that the authors of this paper seem to misinterpret it.

Have you considered emailing the corresponding author vangsness@usc.edu and asking?
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

AndyK
Posts: 794
Joined: 17 Aug 2007, 2:08pm

Re: New study finds there "was no difference in mortality between helmeted and non-helmeted"

Postby AndyK » 20 Feb 2019, 2:05pm

Pastychomper wrote:I can't see the paper from here, could it be a typo, or maybe the author was referring to a specific subset of bicycle injuries?



The OP provided a link to it. If the link works for me I doubt it's blocked in Scotland somehow!

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 13741
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: New study finds there "was no difference in mortality between helmeted and non-helmeted"

Postby mjr » 20 Feb 2019, 3:51pm

AndyK wrote:
Pastychomper wrote:I can't see the paper from here, could it be a typo, or maybe the author was referring to a specific subset of bicycle injuries?



The OP provided a link to it. If the link works for me I doubt it's blocked in Scotland somehow!

I downloaded it three times before realising the link was to a PDF download that (unusually) didn't open automatically.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

User avatar
Pastychomper
Posts: 300
Joined: 14 Nov 2017, 11:14am
Location: Caithness

Re: New study finds there "was no difference in mortality between helmeted and non-helmeted"

Postby Pastychomper » 20 Feb 2019, 4:06pm

Sorry, should have made myself clearer. I was reading at w*rk, where it was blocked, and decided to make a quick comment instead of doing the sensible thing and waiting until I could download the paper.
Everyone's ghast should get a good flabbering now and then.
--Ole Boot

User avatar
RickH
Posts: 4496
Joined: 5 Mar 2012, 6:39pm
Location: Horwich, Lancs.

Re: New study finds there "was no difference in mortality between helmeted and non-helmeted"

Postby RickH » 20 Feb 2019, 4:20pm

They bemoan the situation
Bicycle-related injuries are a serious social and financial problem. This data demonstrated, as anticipated, severe injuries.

And then state
Low velocity injuries with motor vehicles were the most common injuries. 78% had fractures.
This data found that 70% of all injured patients were involved in a collision with a motor
vehicle.

Indicating that it isn't the cycling that is the problem but the car (& other motor vehicle) drivers causing the "serious social and financial problem"!

User avatar
The utility cyclist
Posts: 2426
Joined: 22 Aug 2016, 12:28pm
Location: The first garden city

Re: New study finds there "was no difference in mortality between helmeted and non-helmeted"

Postby The utility cyclist » 21 Feb 2019, 7:29pm

pwa wrote:The usual problem exists, i.e. no way of knowing whether the helmeted / non-helmeted groups who did not feel the need to attend hospital were the same or different. To make any judgement at all you would need to actually look at all the accidents, not just those that resulted in a hospital visit.

but we do know that some 1.3 million head injuries are reported to health professionals and some 160,000 per annum are admitted for a stay in hospital, that's not even all serious head injuries as some will be defined as serious but not need a hospital stay.
The significant differential between hospitalised cyclists due solely to head injury and those from the rest of society is massive, it's about time there was investment in helmets for everyone except for those on bike as it's fairly clear people on bikes are small fry when it comes to these injury types

We also know that since the mid 00s that cyclist serious injuries on the roads, a significant proportion of them to the head, has gone up not down and further that the rate of injury has dropped significantly in pedestrians over the same period. And what happened in the mid 00s ... cycling helmets were being worn in hugely greater numbers, an offshoot of the decision by the UCI so BS took up the exact same stance, cycling club members increasingly wore them, government, police and other ne'er do wells also started to massively push the victim blaming trope by encouraging and yes forcing people to wear them. It's gone downhill in terms of injuries for incidents ever since.
That is very significant with respect to bhow ineffective plastic hats are, you don't need to look at every individual incident when the headline figures are so glaringly obvious!