ArticleEpidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.)2012
Cell phone use and crash risk: evidence for positive bias.
Article in Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.), 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Adolescent Cellphone Use While Driving: An Overview of the Literature and Promising Future Directions for Prevention.Media and communication · 2016Article
- Driving with pets as a risk factor for motor vehicle collisions among older drivers.Accident; analysis and prevention · 2013Article
- A simulator evaluation of the effects of attention maintenance training on glance distributions of younger novice drivers inside and outside the vehicle.Transportation research. Part F, Traffic psychology and behaviour · 2013Article
- An opportunity for convergence? Understanding the prevalence and risk of distracted driving through the use of crash databases, crash investigations, and other approaches.Annals of advances in automotive medicine. Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine. Annual Scientific ConferenceArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecent epidemiologic studies have estimated little or no increased risk of automotive crashes related to cell phone conversations by the driver, whereas earlier case-crossover studies estimated the relative risk as close to 4. Did earlier studies introduce a positive bias in relative risk estimates by overestimating driving exposure in control windows?
methodsDriving exposures in a "control" window and a corresponding "case" window on the subsequent day were tabulated across 100 days for 439 GPS-instrumented vehicles in the Puget Sound area during 2005-2006.
resultsFor control windows containing at least some driving, driving exposure was about one-fourth that of case windows. Adjusting for this imbalance reduces relative risk estimates in the earlier case-crossover studies from 4 to 1.
conclusionEarlier case-crossover studies likely overestimated the relative risk for cell phone conversations while driving by implicitly assuming that driving during a control window was full-time when it may have been only part-time.
Indexed as
Identifiers
22082996What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.