Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15604156›Full record

Trial reportBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2005

Providing child safety equipment to prevent injuries: randomised controlled trial.

Michael Watson, Denise Kendrick, Carol Coupland, Amanda Woods, Deb Futers, Jean Robinson

Open access · bronzeAbstract readClinical TrialMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
7.3field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 98 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Modification of the home environment for the reduction of injuries.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2011
    Pooled it
  4. Interventions for promoting smoke alarm ownership and function.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2001
    Pooled it
  5. A randomised safety promotion intervention trial among low-income families with toddlers.Injury prevention : journal of the International Society for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention · 2018
    Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Reaching an underserved population with a randomly assigned home safety intervention.Injury prevention : journal of the International Society for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention · 2005
    Trial
  8. Article
  9. Effectiveness of systematically delivered evidence-based home safety promotion to improve child home safety practices: a controlled before-and-after study.Injury prevention : journal of the International Society for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention · 2023
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Keeping children safe at home: protocol for three matched case-control studies of modifiable risk factors for falls.Injury prevention : journal of the International Society for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention · 2012
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Listen to the data when results are not significant.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2008
    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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Michael WatsonFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, School of Nursing, University of Nottingham, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham NG7 2HA. michael.watson@nottingham.ac.uk
Denise Kendrick
Carol Coupland
Amanda Woods
Deb Futers
Jean Robinson
University of Nottingham · GBNottingham City Council · GBQueen's Medical Centre · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess the effectiveness of safety advice and safety equipment in reducing unintentional injuries for families with children aged under 5 years and living in deprived areas.

designRandomised controlled trial.

setting47 general practices in Nottingham.

participants3428 families with children under 5.

interventionA standardised safety consultation and provision of free and fitted stair gates, fire guards, smoke alarms, cupboard locks, and window locks.

main outcome measuresPrimary outcome measures were whether a child in the family had at least one injury that required medical attendance and rates of attendance in primary and secondary care and of hospital admission for injury over a two year period. Secondary outcome measures included possession of safety equipment and safety practices.

resultsNo significant difference was found in the proportion of families in which a child had a medically attended injury (odds ratio 1.14, 95% confidence interval 0.98 to 1.50) or in the rates of attendance in secondary care (incidence rate ratio 1.02, 0.90 to 1.13) or admission to hospital (1.02, 0.70 to 1.48). However, children in the intervention arm had a significantly higher attendance rate for injuries in primary care (1.37, 1.11 to 1.70, P = 0.003). At both one and two years' follow up, families in the intervention arm were significantly more likely to have a range of safety practices, but absolute differences in the percentages were relatively small.

conclusionsThe intervention resulted in significant improvements in safety practices for up to two years but did not reduce injuries that necessitated medical attendance. Although equipment was provided and fitted free of charge, the observed changes in safety practices may not have been large enough to affect injury rates.

Indexed as

Accident PreventionChildCommunity Health NursingEnglandFollow-Up StudiesHumansPatient CompliancePatient Education as TopicPrognosisProtective DevicesSafety ManagementWounds and Injuries

Identifiers

PMID15604156
PMCPMC544992
OpenAlexW2074590318

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.