Observational studyJournal of the American Geriatrics Society2018
Prospective Validation of a Screening Tool to Identify Older Adults in Need of a Driving Evaluation.
Observational study in Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development of a Web-Based Resource to Support Driving Safety in Older Adults: Semistructured Interview and Focus Group Study.JMIR aging · 2026Article
- Candrive-Development of a Risk Stratification Tool for Older Drivers.The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences · 2023Article
- Predictors of Readiness for Mobility Transition in Older Drivers.Journal of gerontological social workObservational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo prospectively validate and refine the 5-item "CRASH" screening tool for identifying older drivers needing a behind-the-wheel (BTW) test.
designProspective observational study.
settingGeriatric and internal medicine primary care clinics affiliated with a tertiary care hospital and a local BTW program.
participantsCognitively intact drivers aged 65 and older (N = 315). MEASUREMENTS: Participants completed baseline questionnaire (including CRASH tool) and assessments and BTW test (evaluator blinded to questionnaire results) and participated in 1-month telephone follow-up. Analysis included descriptive statistics and examination of predictive ability of the CRASH tool to discriminate normal (pass) from abnormal (conditional pass or fail) on the BTW test, with logistic regression and CART techniques for tool refinement.
resultsTwo hundred sixty-six participants (84%) had a BTW test; of these, 17% had a normal rating and 83% an abnormal rating. Forty-five percent of those with an abnormal score were advised to limit driving under particular conditions. Neither the CRASH tool nor its individual component variables were significantly associated with the summary BTW score; in refined models with other variables, the best-performing tool had approximately 67% sensitivity and specificity for an abnormal BTW score. Most participants found the BTW test useful and were willing to pay a median of $50. At 1-month follow-up, no participants had stopped driving.
conclusionThe CRASH screening tool cannot be recommended for use in clinical practice. Findings on older adults' perceived utility of the BTW test and the stability of driving patterns at 1-month follow-up could be useful for future research studies and for design of older driver programs.
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.