ArticleBMC public health2023
Walking against traffic and pedestrian injuries in the United Kingdom: new insights.
Article in BMC public health, 2023. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- When Pedestrian Crossings Become Danger Zones: Trauma and Mortality Risks in Elderly Pedestrians.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStudies from Finland and Taiwan have shown that walking against traffic was beneficial for reducing pedestrian crashes and fatalities. This study examined whether such beneficial effects are consistent across various circumstances.
methodsThis study aimed to investigate pedestrian fatalities in walking-against or with-traffic crashes by analysing the UK STATS19 crash data for the period between 1991 and 2020. We firstly employed Chi-square tests to examine risk factors for pedestrian injury severity. These variables were then incorporated into stepwise logistic regression models with multiple variables. We subsequently conducted joint effect analysis to investigate whether the beneficial effects of walking against traffic on injury severity vary across different situations.
resultsOur data contained 44,488 pedestrian crashes, of which 16,889 and 27,599 involved pedestrians walking against and with traffic, respectively. Pedestrians involved in with-traffic crashes were more likely to sustain fatalities (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.542; confidence interval [CI] = 1.139-1.927) compared with those in walking against-traffic crashes. The detrimental effect of walking with traffic on fatalities appeared to be more pronounced in darkness-unlit conditions (AOR = 1.48; CI = 1.29-1.70), during midnight hours (00:00-06:59 am) (AOR = 1.60; CI = 1.37-1.87), in rural areas (AOR = 2.20; CI = 1.92-2.51), when pedestrians were elderly (≥ 65 years old) (AOR = 2.65, CI = 2.16-3.26), and when heavy goods vehicles were crash partners (AOR = 1.51, CI = 1.28-1.78).
conclusionsWalking against traffic was beneficial in reducing pedestrian fatalities compared with walking with traffic. Furthermore, such a beneficial effect was more pronounced in darkness-unlit conditions, at midnights (00:00-06:59 am), in rural areas, when pedestrians were elderly, and when heavy goods vehicles struck pedestrians.
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.