ArticleMedicine2020
Social and environmental risk factors for road traffic injuries among children under five in rural China.
Article in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- The burden of severe chest injuries in five East Asian countries: a secondary age-period-cohort analysis of GBD 2023.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Comparative analysis of child restraint system use in nine cities: a multiround cross-sectional observational study.BMJ public health · 2026Article
- Prevention of "bygone futures" due to road traffic injuries in children.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2024Review
- Hospitalization information and burden of pediatric inpatients in transport accidents.BMC public health · 2024Article
- The trend of unintentional injury-related mortality among children aged under-five years in China, 2010-2020: a retrospective analysis from a national surveillance system.BMC public health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRoad traffic injuries (RTIs) have become a considerable issue for children. In China, RTIs are among the top 3 contributors to injury-related mortality and disability-adjusted life years. The present study aimed to evaluate social and environmental factors that may contribute to RTIs among children under 5 in rural areas of China.
methodsThe study was based on 1 year of data (October 1, 2015 to September 30, 2016) from the National Maternal and Child Health Surveillance System (NMCHSS) from all districts in 334 National Maternal and Child Health Surveillance Districts in 30 Chinese provinces, autonomous regions, and municipalities. Data were analyzed to identify environmental, social, and primary caregiver factors related to RTIs among children under 5.
resultsBased on data for the 279 children registered in the NMCHSS during the study period, incidence of RTIs increased with increasing age and was higher for boys than girls. Risk of RTIs depended on distances from the child's home to roads and playgrounds. Enrollment in kindergarten and characteristics of primary caregivers affected risky road behaviors by children. Most primary caregivers (67.4%) reported never using child car seats, and 70.6% reported never using a child helmet. Among primary caregivers without a driver's license, 24.8% reported having driven motor vehicles or motorcycles.
conclusionsThe living environment and behaviors of primary caregivers can affect risk of RTIs in children younger than 5 years in rural China. Road safety awareness should be strengthened at the community and kindergarten levels.
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.