[bikeqld] eMJA: Bicycling injuries and mortality in Victoria, 2001 – 2006

[John Nightingale]

This suggests that the eMJA is not rigorously refereed. This surprises me. I
wonder whether there is a subscriber to this learned journal ­ in print
form, that is ­ on our list who would be willing to spend the time to read
both article and editorial carefully and consider a letter to the editor
about the disjunction between evidence and text in the paper.

We know that the editorialists, Baumann and Rissel, are passionate advocates
of cycling for health as well as many other reasons, so their comments might
be taken by cynical AMA members, who are the base constituency of the AMA¹s
journal, as just the usual apologists for cycling. Someone less identified
with Œthe cause¹ might be taken more seriously, and the journal¹s editors
might even be chastened.
J.


On 6/4/09 10:19 AM, "Peter Whittle" <peter.whittle at qut.edu.au> wrote:

> Hi everyone
>  
> I suggest it's better to read the editorial before the paper. I read the paper
> first and thought it very poor, then set about writing some notes about why
> (below). Then I was gratified to see the editorial gave it fairly short shrift
> too.
>  
> Pete
>  
> <Our population-based study found that ED presentations and hospital
> admissions for bicycle injuries increased significantly from 2001 to 2006.
> There was also a marked increase in cyclists sustaining major trauma.>
>  
> Looking at the graph, it is fairly apparent that Emergency Department
> presentations increased each year. However, hospital admissions, major trauma
> and deaths could not be said to have changed significantly. The author claims
> major trauma had a "marked increase", but this was in one year and in other
> years it flat-lined; furthermore there was no relationship between the
> frequency of major trauma and the rising rate of hospital admissions. To me,
> the author's conclusion looks unjustified and one wonders why he tried so hard
> to force this conclusion from the data.
>  
> Also, in relation to the rise in ED presentations, the comparison was "per
> unit population", not "per unit bicycle usage". I observe there has been a
> marked increase in bicycling usage in this time (just look at the mass-ride
> participation). So how could you conclude much at all? If I'm right and
> bicycle usage increased, then it would possibly mean a fall in the rate of
> hospital admissions, major trauma and deaths per unit bike usage. Furthermore,
> this would be offset by health improvements for those taking up cycling.
>  
> I'm glad the author concluded some lack of information and need for more data
> about participation, etc.
>  
> Pete
> 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.bikeqld.org.au/pipermail/bikeqld/attachments/20090406/78080273/attachment-0001.htm