Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12076415›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2002

Safety education of pedestrians for injury prevention.

O Duperrex, I Roberts, F Bunn

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Interventions for preventing injuries in the agricultural industry.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2008
    Pooled it
  4. Understanding a community's needs for an emergency department-based childhood injury prevention programme: a mixed-methods study.Injury prevention : journal of the International Society for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. A single urban center experience with adult pedestrians struck by motor vehicles.WMJ : official publication of the State Medical Society of Wisconsin · 2013
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Current trends and update on injury prevention.International journal of critical illness and injury science · 2011
    Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors.

O DuperrexInstitut de Medecine Sociale et Preventive, Centre medical universitaire, 1, rue Michel-Servet, CH-1211, Geneve 4, Switzerland. Olivier.Duperrex@imsp.unige.ch
I Roberts
F Bunn

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEach year about one million people die and about 10 million are seriously injured on the world's roads. Educational measures to teach pedestrians how to cope with the traffic environment are considered to be an essential component of any prevention strategy, and pedestrian education has been recommended in many countries. However, as resources available for road safety are limited, a key question concerns the relative effectiveness of different prevention strategies.

objectivesTo quantify the effectiveness of pedestrian safety education programmes in preventing pedestrian-motor vehicle collisions. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Injuries Group specialised register, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, TRANSPORT, MEDLINE, EMBASE, ERIC, PSYCHLIT, SPECTR, and the WHO database on the Internet. We checked reference lists of relevant reviews and papers and contacted experts in the field. Most database searching was conducted in 1999. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of safety education programmes for pedestrians of all ages. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One reviewer screened records. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed methodological quality of trials. Because of differences in the types of interventions and outcome measures used in the trials, meta-analyses were not carried out. MAIN

resultsWe found 15 randomised-controlled trials of pedestrian safety education programmes, conducted between 1976 and 1997. Methodological quality of the included trials was generally poor. Allocation concealment was adequate in three trials, outcome assessment was blinded in eight, and in most of the studies large numbers of participants were lost to follow-up. Study participants were children in 14 studies and institutionalised adults in one. Eight studies involved the direct education of participants, seven used parents as educators. No trials were conducted in a developing country and there were none of pedestrian safety training in the elderly. None of the included trials assessed the effect of pedestrian safety education on the occurrence of pedestrian injury but six trials assessed the effect on observed behaviour. Some of these trials showed evidence of behavioural change following pedestrian safety education but it is difficult to predict what effect this might have on pedestrian injury risk. REVIEWER'S

conclusionsPedestrian safety education can result in improvement in children's knowledge and can change observed road crossing behaviour but whether this reduces the risk of pedestrian motor vehicle collision and injury occurrence is unknown. There is evidence that changes in safety knowledge and observed behaviour decline with time suggesting that safety education must be repeated at regular intervals.

Indexed as

SafetyWalkingAccidents, TrafficHumansProgram EvaluationRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicWounds and Injuries

Identifiers

PMID12076415
PMCPMC7025789

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.