ArticleBMJ open2012
Linking road casualty and clinical data to assess the effectiveness of mobile safety enforcement cameras: a before and after study.
Article in BMJ open, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of road safety interventions: An evidence and gap map.Campbell systematic reviews · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo use police STATS19 road casualty data and accident and emergency and in-patient information to estimate the impact of mobile safety cameras on the cost of treating individuals injured in road traffic collisions.
designA data-matching and costing exercise to link casualty and clinical information in a 'before' and 'after' study of 56 mobile safety cameras.
settingThe Northumbria Police Force area of the UK covering six local authority districts.
participantsSlight, serious and fatal casualties involved in road traffic collisions at mobile camera sites in the case-study area between April 2001-March 2003 and April 2004-March 2006. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Changes in the number and severity of casualties at the mobile camera sites between the 'before' and 'after' period that can be attributed to mobile safety camera activity, and any impacts these changes had on the 'cost of treatment saved' by the secondary healthcare service in the case-study area.
resultsUsing tariff values for accident and emergency and In-patient Health Resource Groups, the impacts of the cameras in terms of the 'cost of treatment saved' are in the range £12 500-£15 000 per annum. However, inconsistencies between databases resulted in approximately one-third of the casualties not being matched successfully in the clinical databases. The number of closed fractures requiring investigations, treatment and follow-up care reduced considerably, although this was offset by an increase in head injury contusions and open fractures that require high-cost investigations and extensive in-patient care.
conclusionsRoad safety cameras could have a significant impact in terms of 'cost of treatment saved'. However, it is argued that investigating the impacts of road safety measures in the future should be based on Fully Bayesian techniques as they can produce more reliable estimates of the effects of regression to mean and general trends in casualty statistics.
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.