↓ Skip to main content

The protective effect of helmet use in motorcycle and bicycle accidents: a propensity score–matched study based on a trauma registry system

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
310 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
103 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The protective effect of helmet use in motorcycle and bicycle accidents: a propensity score–matched study based on a trauma registry system
Published in
BMC Public Health, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12889-017-4649-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Spencer C. H. Kuo, Pao-Jen Kuo, Cheng-Shyuan Rau, Yi-Chun Chen, Hsiao-Yun Hsieh, Ching-Hua Hsieh

Abstract

Transportation by motorcycle and bicycle has become popular in Taiwan, this study was designed to investigate the protective effect of helmet use during motorcycle and bicycle accidents by using a propensity score-matched study based on trauma registry system data. Data of adult patients hospitalized for motorcycle or bicycle accidents between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2015 were retrieved from the Trauma Registry System. These included 7735 motorcyclists with helmet use, 863 motorcyclists without helmet use, 76 bicyclists with helmet use, and 647 bicyclists without helmet use. The primary outcome measurement was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were the hospital length of stay (LOS), intensive care unit (ICU) admission rate, and ICU LOS. Normally distributed continuous data were analyzed by the unpaired Student t-test, and non-normally distributed data were compared using the Mann-Whitney U-test. Two-sided Fisher exact or Pearson chi-square tests were used to compare categorical data. Propensity score matching (1:1 ratio using optimal method with a 0.2 caliper width) was performed using NCSS software, adjusting for the following covariates: sex, age, and comorbidities. Further logistic regression was used to evaluate the effect of helmet use on mortality rates of motorcyclists and bicyclists, respectively. The mortality rate for motorcyclists with helmet use (1.1%) was significantly lower than for motorcyclists without helmet use (4.2%; odds ratio [OR] 0.2; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.17-0.37; p < 0.001). Among bicyclists, there was no significant difference in mortality rates between the patients with helmet use (5.3%) and those without helmet use (3.7%; OR 1.4; 95% CI: 0.49-4.27; p = 0.524). After propensity-score matching for covariates, including sex, age, and comorbidities, 856 well-balanced pairs of motorcyclists and 76 pairs of bicyclists were identified for outcome comparison, showing that helmet use among motorcyclists was associated with lower mortality rates (OR 0.2; 95% CI: 0.09-0.44; p < 0.001). In contrast, helmet use among bicyclists was not associated with a decrease in mortality (OR 1.3; 95% CI: 0.30-5.96; p = 0.706). The hospital LOS was also significantly shorter for motorcyclists with helmet use than for those without (9.5 days vs. 12.0 days, respectively, p < 0.001) although for bicyclists, helmet use was not associated with hospital LOS. Fewer motorcyclists with helmet use were admitted to the ICU, regardless of the severity of injury; however, no significant difference of ICU admission rates was found between bicyclists with and without helmets. Motorcycle helmets provide protection to adult motorcyclists involved in traffic accidents and their use is associated with a decrease in mortality rates and the risk of head injuries. However, no such protective effect of helmet use was observed for bicyclists involved in collisions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 310 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 103 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 103 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 9%
Student > Bachelor 9 9%
Student > Master 7 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 4%
Other 13 13%
Unknown 50 49%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 21%
Engineering 10 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 5%
Environmental Science 2 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 8 8%
Unknown 54 52%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 243. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 January 2024.
All research outputs
#156,745
of 25,753,578 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#140
of 17,809 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,343
of 328,770 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#3
of 193 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,753,578 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 17,809 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 328,770 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 193 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.