PubMed · 15986898
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
Robert E Henderson. 2005. Understanding oxygen sensor performance.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15986898/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
BACKGROUND: It is estimated that by 2020, road traffic crashes will have moved from ninth to third in the world ranking of burden of disease, as measured in disability adjusted life years. The identification of effective strategies for the prevention of road traffic injuries is of global public health importance. Measures aimed at reducing traffic speed are considered essential to preventing road injuries; the use of speed enforcement detection devices (including speed cameras and radar and laser devices) is one such measure. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether the use of speed enforcement detection devices (SEDs) reduces the incidence of speeding, road traffic crashes, injuries and deaths. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science (and Social Science) Citation Index, TRANSPORT, PsycINFO, CINAHL, EconLit. We searched the websites of road safety and motoring associations, as well as general internet searches. We handsearched selected journals and conference proceedings, and contacted experts in the field. The searches were conducted during May to November 2004. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials and controlled before-after studies that assessed the impact of speed enforcement detection devices on speeding, road crashes, injuries and deaths were eligible for inclusion. For studies involving co-interventions, SEDs had to be the major intervention focus of the study to be eligible. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We independently screened search results, assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed methodological quality. Due to variability between and within included studies, a pooled analysis was not appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: No randomised controlled trials were identified. Twenty-six studies met the inclusion criteria, of which 22 were controlled before-after trials incorporating a distinct control or comparison group(s) and four were interrupted time series designs with a comparison group(s). Fourteen studies reported speed and crash outcomes, seven reported crash outcomes only and five reported speed outcomes only. All but one study reported an absolute reduction in pre/post average speeds. A pre/post reduction in the proportion of speeding vehicles ranged across studies from 5% to 70% depending on the speed threshold set. Pre/post reductions of 50% to 65% were reported in the proportion of speeding vehicles travelling >15 km/h over the speed limit. Compared with controls, the relative improvement was from 1% to 15% for average speed and from 14% to 65% for percent speeding. All studies reporting crash outcomes reported an absolute pre/post reduction in all crashes and injury related crashes. In the vicinity of camera sites these pre/post reductions ranged from 14% to 72% for all crashes, 8% to 46% for injury crashes, and 40% to 45% for crashes resulting in fatalities or serious injuries. More generalised effects over wider areas showed an absolute pre/post crash reduction ranging from 9% to 35%, 7% to 30% for all injury crashes and 13% to 58% for crashes resulting in fatalities alone, or in combination with serious injuries. The studies of longer duration showed that these positive trends were either maintained or improved with time. Compared with controls, the relative improvement in pre/post crash numbers resulting in any type of injury ranged from 5% to 36%. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Despite the methodological limitations of the studies reviewed, the consistency of reported positive reductions in speed and crash outcomes across all studies suggest that SEDs are a promising intervention for reducing the number of road traffic injuries and deaths. More studies of a scientifically rigorous nature are necessary to provide a stronger evidence base that these interventions are worthwhile. There is a need for international harmonisation of data collection methods, including standards on how best to measure speeds and collect crash data, over lengthy intervention and follow-up periods, as well as some consensus as to the expression of outcomes in studies, so that studies can be compared.
BACKGROUND: Injuries are a significant public health burden and alcohol intoxication is recognised as a risk factor for injuries. There is increasing attention on supply-side interventions, which aim to modify the environment and context within which alcohol is supplied and consumed. OBJECTIVES: To quantify the effectiveness of interventions implemented in the server setting for reducing injuries. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group Specialised Register (September 2004), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2004), MEDLINE (January 1966 to September 2004), EMBASE (1980 to 2004, wk 36), other specialised databases and reference lists of articles. We also contacted experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised controlled studies (NRS) of the effectiveness of interventions administered in the server setting which attempted to modify the conditions under which alcohol is served and consumed, to facilitate sensible alcohol consumption and reduce the occurrence of alcohol-related harm. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened search results and assessed the full texts of potentially relevant studies for inclusion. Data were extracted and methodological quality was examined. Due to variability in the intervention types investigated, a pooled analysis was not appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty studies met the inclusion criteria. Overall methodological quality was poor. Five studies used an injury outcome measure; only one of these studies was randomised. The studies were grouped into broad categories according to intervention type. One NRS investigated server training and estimated a reduction of 23% in single vehicle night-time crashes in the experimental area (controlled for crashes in the control area). Another NRS examined the impact of a drink driving service, and reported a reduction in injury road crashes of 15% in the experimental area, with no change in the control; no difference was found for fatal crashes. One NRS investigating the impact of a policy intervention, reported that pre-intervention the serious assault rate in the experimental area was 52% higher than the rate in the control area. After intervention, the serious assault rate in the experimental area was 37% lower than in the control. The only RCT targeting the server setting environment with an injury outcome compared toughened glassware (experimental) to annealed glassware (control) on number of bar staff injuries; a greater number of injuries were detected in the experimental group (relative risk 1.72, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.59). A NRS investigating the impact of a intervention aiming to reduce crime experienced by drinking premises; found a lower rate of all crime in the experimental premises (rate ratio 4.6, 95% CI 1.7 to 12, P = 0.01), no difference was found for injury (rate ratio 1.1. 95% CI 0.1 to 10, P = 0.093). The effectiveness of the interventions on patron alcohol consumption is inconclusive. One randomised trial found a statistically significant reduction in observed severe aggression exhibited by patrons. There is some indication of improved server behaviour but it is difficult to predict what effect this might have on injury risk. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no reliable evidence that interventions in the alcohol server setting are effective in reducing injury. Compliance with interventions appears to be a problem; hence mandated interventions may be more likely to show an effect. Randomised controlled trials, with adequate allocation concealment and blinding are required to improve the evidence base. Further well conducted non-randomised trials are also needed, when random allocation is not feasible.
OBJECTIVE: To characterise and provide nationally representative estimates of persons with non-fatal horse related injuries treated in American emergency departments. METHODS: The National Electronic Injury Surveillance System All Injury Program (NEISS-AIP) is a stratified probability sample comprising 66 hospitals. Data on injuries treated in these emergency departments are collected and reported. NEISS-AIP data on all types (horseback riding and otherwise) of non-fatal horse related injuries from 2001 to 2003 were analysed. RESULTS: An estimated 102,904 persons with non-fatal horse related injuries (35.7 per 100,000 population) were treated in American emergency departments each year from 2001 to 2003 inclusive. Non-fatal injury rates were higher for females (41.5 per 100,000) than for males (29.8 per 100,000). Most patients were injured while mounted on a horse (66.1%), commonly from falling or being thrown by the horse; while not mounted, injuries most often resulted from being kicked by the horse. The body parts most often injured were the head/neck region (23.2%), lower extremity (22.2%), and upper extremity (21.5%). The most common principal diagnoses were contusions/abrasions (31.4%) and fractures (25.2%). For each year that was studied, an estimated 11 502 people sustained traumatic brain injuries from horse related incidents. Overall, more than 11% of those injured were admitted to hospital. CONCLUSIONS: Horse related injuries are a public health concern not just for riders but for anyone in close contact with horses. Prevention programmes should target horseback riders and horse caregivers to promote helmet use and educate participants about horse behaviour, proper handling of horses, and safe riding practices.