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

[1982john]

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

[Wanlock Dod]

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

[thelawnet]

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.

[bovlomov]

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.

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.

[gaz]

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

That old chestnut again, correlation is not causation .

[bovlomov]

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

That old chestnut again, correlation is not causation .

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

[AndyK]

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.

[Pastychomper]

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.

[pwa]

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.

[mjr]

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?

[AndyK]

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!

[mjr]

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.

[Pastychomper]

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.

[RickH]

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"!

[The utility cyclist]

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!