<html>
<body>
Nicely put John ... and Pete ...<br><br>
Here is another way to put it ... sent privately this morning ... but now
perhaps worth airing ...!
<dl>
<dd>Ah medical doctors ... or more accurately, their (perceived)
all-pervading influence ...!<br>
<dd>No mention of the nobody killed in 40km/h zones in Victoria? Wonder
why not?<br>
<dd>VERY sad to see Bauman and Rissel feeling they (still) need to write
stuff like that (presumably) to either get (i) published by the MJA or
(ii) public interest by not being seen to be too radical.<br>
<dd>All in all both (article and editorial) provide what is probably a
useful indicator as to where we are actually at ... ie the reality rather
than believing some of the rhetoric ....!
</dl>Probably not quite what might be described as a disinterested and/or
dispassionate peer review?<br><br>
And of course as with much similar "research", it depends on
the perspective of the reader ...! <br><br>
And are informed advocates really still equated with
"apologists"? <br><br>
Hopefully not ... ;-) ... having listened to an in depth interview with
the "inventor" of the "Bionic Ear" earlier today on
ABC 612.<br><br>
But not at all what I would describe as useful evidence of progress ...
as Harry Owen and many others were saying much the same thing 10 years
ago ... indeed more than 13 years ago ... and arguably almost nothing
(useful) has happened and/or changed since .. IF these articles and the
reported research is to be believed.<br><br>
Perhaps the MJA reflects the view through a Mercedes Benz star ?<br><br>
MY..................<br><br>
At 11:14 AM 6/04/2009, John Nightingale wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><font face="Verdana">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.<br>
<br>
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 AMA’s journal, as just the usual apologists for
cycling. Someone less identified with ‘the cause’ might be taken more
seriously, and the journal’s editors might even be chastened.<br>
J.<br><br>
<br>
On 6/4/09 10:19 AM, "Peter Whittle"
<peter.whittle@qut.edu.au> wrote:<br><br>
</font>
<dl>
<dd><font color="#0000FF">Hi everyone<br>
</font><font face="Verdana"><br>
</font>
<dd><font color="#0000FF">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.<br>
</font><font face="Verdana"><br>
</font>
<dd><font color="#0000FF">Pete<br>
</font><font face="Verdana"><br>
</font>
<dd><font color="#0000FF"><</font>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times" size=4>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.><br>
</font><font face="Verdana"><br>
</font>
<dd><font color="#0000FF">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.<br>
</font><font face="Verdana"><br>
</font>
<dd><font color="#0000FF">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.<br>
</font><font face="Verdana"><br>
</font>
<dd><font color="#0000FF">I'm glad the author concluded some lack of
information and need for more data about participation, etc.<br>
</font><font face="Verdana"><br>
</font>
<dd><font color="#0000FF">Pete<br>
</font><font size=2><br>
</dl><br>
</font>_______________________________________________<br>
bikeqld mailing list<br>
bikeqld@bikeqld.org.au<br>
<a href="http://www.bikeqld.org.au/" eudora="autourl">
http://www.bikeqld.org.au/</a><br>
<a href="http://www.bikeqld.org.au/mailman/listinfo/bikeqld" eudora="autourl">
http://www.bikeqld.org.au/mailman/listinfo/bikeqld</a><br>
This list has NO affiliation with Bicycle Queensland.<br><br>
No virus found in this incoming message.<br>
Checked by AVG -
<a href="http://www.avg.com/" eudora="autourl">www.avg.com</a> <br>
Version: 8.5.285 / Virus Database: 270.11.42/2042 - Release Date:
04/05/09 10:54:00</blockquote></body>
</html>