Investigative study of meta-analysis claims

[Steady rider]

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... 4414d59d4f

Investigation into meta-analysis claims regarding cycle helmets
4Abstract

Cycle helmets are a contentious issue which stems from evidence both for and against their use and the negative effects from when legislation is imposed, which has led to fines for non-wearers, some people cycling less or stopping and health implications.It is very important to understand all the safety, social and legal aspects, so that cycling can be promoted and enjoyed without helmet requirements interfering. Meta-analysis reports by Olivier and Creighton 20171 and Hoye 20182 include studies that compare the proportion of head injuries or other injuries for wearer vs non-wearers. Hoye 20183 also provides an assessment of mandatory helmet legislation. Weaknesses in these approaches stem from the combined effect of issues which affect both the accident rate and head injury rate for helmeted vs non-helmeted or not fully being able to evaluate the differences between the two groups This study provides 35 examples of differences in behaviour and discusses how these differences affect the assessment processes. The meta-analysis claims that helmet use is associated with reductions for head injury,serious head injury, face injury and fatal head injury. When examined in detail, the claims appear to overestimate the value of helmets, due to weaknesses of the supporting evidence and methodology 4. Data on neck injuries shows helmet use increases the risk of a fracture for adults. Hoye’s claims for supporting helmet legislation are unreliable and lack merit. Some evidence suggests helmet use may reduce overall safety.

Table 6 provides 35 examples in differences in behaviour, including 17 alcohol related. Are there other examples that can be added?

[Nearholmer]

Any new data to bring to the table, or is this an analysis of analyses, an obsessive raking-over of old coals?

[853]

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... 4414d59d4f

Table 6 provides 35 examples in differences in behaviour, including 17 alcohol related. Are there other examples that can be added?

And here is Table 6, which actually provides 12 differences as it counts the 17 mentions of alcohol and a0lcohol [sic] use as separate differences. It also counts motor vehicle collisions 3 times, Disobeying traffic control in 3 different ways, fall from bicycle twice etc.

Any new data to bring to the table, or is this an analysis of analyses, an obsessive raking-over of old coals?

No, just a bad re-hash of data from the USA, Australia, New Zealand and Canada dating back to 1976. Nothing we haven't seen before, and not worth the hour it took me to read it

[cycle tramp]

I got up very early in the morning to enjoy a cycle ride...it was a lovely sunny morning, but before I went out I considered whether or not I should wear a helmet... by the time i had finished reading all the reports and data analysis about the subject.. the day had passed into evening and I felt very tired and went to bed.
I think there should be a warning about reading research papers and their intrinsic ability to rob you of both time and energy... infact I've just released my own research paper detailing the subject. It's called 'does reading research papers rob you of both time and energy ?' It's very boring. It's the most boring research paper in the world. I'm quite proud of this.

Yours sincerely
The Misty Mr Wisty

(With apologies to Peter Cook)

[Steady rider]

TABLE 6 also provides some risk factors and being able to compare risk levels may be useful.
the notes following table 6 also adds to the level of information.
Risk factors when not available has been noted, n.a. and may be useful for others to fill in the gaps, if they come across risk factors.

[853]

TABLE 6 also provides some risk factors and being able to compare risk levels may be useful.
the notes following table 6 also adds to the level of information.
Risk factors when not available has been noted, n.a. and may be useful for others to fill in the gaps, if they come across risk factors.

As I have already pointed out, Table 6 is factually incorrect so no reliable data can be taken from it

Did you write this study?


https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... 4414d59d4f

[Steady rider]

I am interested in the claim of factually incorrect. Can you please detail?

[853]

I am interested in the claim of factually incorrect. Can you please detail?

Only if you will kindly answer the Yes/No question I asked two days ago

As I have already pointed out, Table 6 is factually incorrect so no reliable data can be taken from it

Did you write this study?

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... 4414d59d4f

[axel_knutt]

Seems to me its problem is that it's not peer reviewed.

[tim-b]

Did you write this study?

This won't be answered

[Steady rider]

The forum policy is for users to decide if to identify their names, and if requests for identity are made, it could result in some people being targeted for unsuitable comments and not knowing who is posting.

Regarding peer review. Prior to about 2000 it appears very little discussion about peer review was happening and if studies had major errors, other researchers would very likely explain the failings, so review came about by other researchers. In the case of cycle helmets where the basic approach by many is helmets must protect in the event of an impact and leading to a majority thinking helmets must therefore be a good idea. When submissions are made for publication, if the basic material and data does not support the general view, the reviewers may consider it less favorable for publication.

If peer reviews were primarily checking the facts, then they can be useful, but the editors may use reviewers with strong feelings to oppose anything not supportive of helmet use. The process can favour publication of studies supportive of helmet use.

There are reports that are not peer reviewed, e.g. DfT RSRR No 30 2002, that omitted important information and many university papers appear not to be peer reviewed.
Cycling UK study 2024 version, Cycle helmets - An overview of the evidence, does not say peer reviewed, but is very useful in explaining the overall topic. https://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default ... t-edit.pdf

The Human Rights aspects could be considered, allowing beliefs and expression of beliefs. The peer review process can hinder expression of beliefs. There are examples of peer reviewed studies containing false claims and misleading information. So peer review has both positive and negative sides.

[853]

I am interested in the claim of factually incorrect. Can you please detail?

I am, as always, only interested in the truth and the facts

Following the unsolicited condescending private message you sent me yesterday, in which you falsely accused me of doing something, I will not be communicating with you further, as I do not want to be associated with a person such as you in any way.

[axel_knutt]

Regarding peer review. Prior to about 2000 it appears very little discussion about peer review was happening and if studies had major errors, other researchers would very likely explain the failings, so review came about by other researchers. In the case of cycle helmets where the basic approach by many is helmets must protect in the event of an impact and leading to a majority thinking helmets must therefore be a good idea. When submissions are made for publication, if the basic material and data does not support the general view, the reviewers may consider it less favorable for publication.

If peer reviews were primarily checking the facts, then they can be useful, but the editors may use reviewers with strong feelings to oppose anything not supportive of helmet use. The process can favour publication of studies supportive of helmet use.

There are reports that are not peer reviewed, e.g. DfT RSRR No 30 2002, that omitted important information and many university papers appear not to be peer reviewed.
Cycling UK study 2024 version, Cycle helmets - An overview of the evidence, does not say peer reviewed, but is very useful in explaining the overall topic. https://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default ... t-edit.pdf

The Human Rights aspects could be considered, allowing beliefs and expression of beliefs. The peer review process can hinder expression of beliefs. There are examples of peer reviewed studies containing false claims and misleading information. So peer review has both positive and negative sides.

Peer review isn't perfect, but without it you'd end up with Nature publishing papers on evolution from the Pope.

[Steady rider]

*853 wrote

853 » 29 Dec 2024, 1:08pm

Steady rider wrote: ↑27 Dec 2024, 8:02pm
I am interested in the claim of factually incorrect. Can you please detail?
I am, as always, only interested in the truth and the facts

Following the unsolicited condescending private message you sent me yesterday, in which you falsely accused me of doing something, I will not be communicating with you further, as I do not want to be associated with a person such as you in any way

I am sorry you have come to a misguided view and my private message was intended to try and resolve any issues. I asked

I am interested in the claim of factually incorrect. Can you please detail?

You attached conditions to a reply.
I have not asked or suggested you to be associated in any way with me and dispute your false claims. I am sorry for this outcome but wish you well in your cycling.