ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2019
Intersections and Non-Intersections: A Protocol for Identifying Pedestrian Crash Risk Locations in GIS.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Intersection and non-intersection locations are commonly used as spatial units of analysis for modeling pedestrian crashes. While both location types have been previously studied, comparing results is difficult given the different data and methods used to identify crash-risk locations. In this study, a systematic and replicable protocol was developed in GIS (Geographic Information System) to create a consistent spatial unit of analysis for use in pedestrian crash modelling. Four publicly accessible datasets were used to identify unique intersection and non-intersection locations: Roadway intersection points, roadway lanes, legal speed limits, and pedestrian crash records. Two algorithms were developed and tested using five search radii (ranging from 20 to 100 m) to assess the protocol reliability. The algorithms, which were designed to identify crash-risk locations at intersection and non-intersection areas detected 87.2% of the pedestrian crash locations (r: 20 m). Agreement rates between algorithm results and the crash data were 94.1% for intersection and 98.0% for non-intersection locations, respectively. The buffer size of 20 m generally showed the highest performance in the analyses. The present protocol offered an efficient and reliable method to create spatial analysis units for pedestrian crash modeling. It provided researchers a cost-effective method to identify unique intersection and non-intersection locations. Additional search radii should be tested in future studies to refine the capture of crash-risk locations.
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.