Jump to comment:
- Helmet believers believe what they want to believeShow More
In claiming that bicycle-related injuries among Ontario children is declining, "likely because of increased helmet use and parental diligence", Donleavy refers to information sourced from two Canadian studies.[1,2]
Nowhere in Macpherson et al's injury study[1] do the authors relate rates of head injuries to rates of helmet usage. Compared instead are rates of injuries among helmet legislating provinces and non-...
Competing Interests: None declared. - Scant data on denominator flaws reportShow More
Dunleavy reports a 26% reduction in hospitalisations for bicycle related head injury in children in Ontario over the last 5 years, and uncritically attributes this to the province's compulsory helmet laws. <http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/168/10/1313> She provides detailed data on injury rates but accepts uncritically the statement of the researcher that a recent paper demonstrates that compulsory helmet laws...
Competing Interests: None declared. - The Need for Controls in Reported ObservationShow More
“The Need for Controls in Reported Observation”
Effective researchers have long respected the need for controls to avoid drawing flawed conclusions from seemingly persuasive evidence. In the recent commentary on time trends in bicycle-related head injuries in Ontario (CMAJ 2003;168:1313), it was reported that head injuries had fallen by 26% but the number of cyclist hospitalisations by only 12.5%. It was not m...
Competing Interests: None declared.