ArticleDer Unfallchirurg2012
[Prevention of road accidents involving non-motorized traffic participants (pedestrians and cyclists) in Germany].
Article in Der Unfallchirurg, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of road safety interventions: An evidence and gap map.Campbell systematic reviews · 2024Article
- [The severely injured older cyclist-Evaluation of the TraumaRegister DGU® : Retrospective, multicenter cross-sectional study based on the TraumaRegister DGU®].Unfallchirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2023Article
- Road Traffic Accidents, Climbing Frames, or Trampolines: What Harms Children in the 2020s?Cureus · 2023Article
- [Characterization of the seriously injured cyclist : An evaluation of the injury and treatment focus areas of 2817 patients].Der Unfallchirurg · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 9 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
During a 1-day workshop organized by the German Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology (DGOU) 15 German accident researchers used different approaches to improve the effectiveness of accident prevention for pedestrians and bicyclists on German roads. The main results of this analysis show: Fatal injuries of pedestrians have been significantly reduced by 82% between 1970 (n=6.056) and 2007 (n=695). Similarly, fatalities of bicyclists have been reduced during the same time period from 1,835 to 425 which amount to almost 80%. However, the total number of injured cyclists increased almost twice, i.e. from 40,531 (in 1979) to 78,579 (in 2007) a fact that needs to be analyzed in more detail. Although scientifically proven to provide protection against severe head injuries, helmets are worn less frequently by adolescents and women as compared to younger children and men. Fatalities of bicyclists might be reduced by using Dobli mirrors which allow the truck driver to see the bicyclist when turning right. Recently developed sensors are able to detect pedestrians walking closely (<2.5 m) and warn the truck driver acoustically. Bicycle lanes should be planned for one direction only, separated from the pedestrian way and large enough (2.0 m are safer than 1.6 m). Traffic education for school beginners and younger children should be repeated to be effective. Training for elderly bicyclists in cities with heavy traffic would also be reasonable. Active security systems in cars like ESP (electronic stability program), BAS (brake assist system), special light systems for curves, and night vision utilities are most effective to prevent collision with pedestrians and bicyclists. TV spots for bicyclists could help to point out dangerous situations and the proven benefits of wearing a helmet in the same way as previous campaigns, e.g."The 7th Sense" for car drivers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.