Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11928980›Full record

ArticleInjury prevention : journal of the International Society for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention2002

Changes in injury mortality by intent and mechanism in Taiwan, 1975-98.

Tsung-Hsueh Lu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Injury prevention : journal of the International Society for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Unalterable host factors? A social epidemiologist's view of the Haddon matrix.Injury prevention : journal of the International Society for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention · 2006
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Tsung-Hsueh LuDepartment of Public Health, Chung Shan Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMost official mortality publications do not present the mechanism of injury (for example, cut/pierce, drowning, fall, poisoning, or suffocation) for intentional injuries (for example, suicide or homicide).

objectivesTo determine if the presentation of mechanism of injury for intentional injuries had different mechanism profiles.

methodsAge adjusted injury mortality rates by intent and mechanism of injury for Taiwan were calculated for the years 1975 to 1998. The International Classification of Disease codes for the matrix by intent and mechanism groupings were based on recommendations of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

resultsIf rates for both groups (intentional and unintentional) are combined, the importance of poisoning and suffocation increase relative to their contribution for unintentional injuries alone. Given the same mechanism of injury, different intents showed different patterns of change during the study period and given the same intent, the changes over time differed for different mechanisms of injury.

conclusionsIt is important to include the mechanism of injury within intentional injuries because it provides different profiles of injury problems. Thus the simultaneous tabulation of injury mortality data by both intent and mechanism is a necessary step for identifying and prioritizing injury problems. The argument that good preventive measures could prevent both unintentional and intentional injuries was also confirmed.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedChildChild, PreschoolFemaleHumansInfantMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesTaiwanWounds and Injuries

Identifiers

PMID11928980
PMCPMC1730814

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.