ArticleJournal of the American Geriatrics Society2026
Self-Reported Driving Problems Predict Future Traffic Crashes in Older Men: Prevalence and Determinants of Unrecognized Imminent Risk.
Article in Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 2026. 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOlder drivers exhibit elevated crash risk per distance driven, yet accurately identifying high-risk individuals without unjustly restricting mobility remains challenging. Whether older drivers can accurately assess their own driving-related risks remains controversial, and educational attainment-as a proxy for cognitive reserve-may influence this capacity for self-assessment.
methodsThis population-based prospective cohort study included 1673 male drivers aged 60 years and older from the Korean Longitudinal Study on Cognitive Aging and Dementia (KLOSCAD). Participants were classified into four risk phenotypes based on concordance between baseline self-reported driving concerns and subsequent crash occurrence: Drivers with inherent safety (DIS), drivers with regulated safety (DRS), drivers with recognized risk (DRR), and drivers with unrecognized risk (DUR). Self-reported and informant-reported driving problems were assessed using the driving risk questionnaire (DRQ). Crash records were obtained from the Korean National Police Agency (KNPA) over a 2-year follow-up.
resultsOf 290 drivers involved in crashes, 179 (61.7%) had reported baseline concerns (DRR), while 111 (38.3%) had not, representing 'silent' at-risk drivers-those who reported no driving concerns at baseline but subsequently experienced crashes (DUR). Lower baseline Self-Informant Discrepancy (mean SID: -0.05 in the unrecognized risk group vs. 3.15 in the recognized risk group; p < 0.001) characterized the unrecognized risk group, while informant reports showed a floor effect (94.3% zero) and did not predict crashes, necessitating objective screening. Among drivers without self-reported concerns, lower education (≤ 9 years) combined with slower TMT-B performance (≥ 180 s) identified a high-risk subgroup with a crash rate of 20.9% (OR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.29-3.22; p = 0.002).
conclusionsSelf-reported driving concerns demonstrate predictive validity for future crashes, but a substantial minority of crash-involved drivers remain undetected by self-report. Education and TMT-B performance may serve as clinically actionable markers for identifying these "silent" at-risk drivers.
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.