<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: [bikeqld] eMJA: Bicycling injuries and mortality in Victoria, 2001–2006</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'>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>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'><FONT COLOR="#0000FF"><FONT FACE="Arial">Hi everyone<BR>
</FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"> <BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000FF"><FONT FACE="Arial">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><FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"> <BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000FF"><FONT FACE="Arial">Pete<BR>
</FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"> <BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000FF"><FONT FACE="Arial"><</FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT SIZE="4"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:14.0px'>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>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'> <BR>
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'><FONT COLOR="#0000FF"><FONT FACE="Arial">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><FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"> <BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000FF"><FONT FACE="Arial">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><FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"> <BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000FF"><FONT FACE="Arial">I'm glad the author concluded some lack of information and need for more data about participation, etc.<BR>
</FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"> <BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000FF"><FONT FACE="Arial">Pete<BR>
</FONT></FONT></SPAN><FONT SIZE="2"><FONT FACE="Monaco, Courier New"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:10.0px'><BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE="2"><FONT FACE="Monaco, Courier New"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:10.0px'><BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT>
</BODY>
</HTML>