Curnow W J
Accid Anal Prev. 2006 Sep;38(5):833-4. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2006.04.007. Epub 2006 May 22.
This paper is a rebuttal of the criticism by Hagel and Pless of my 2005 article in which I dispute the conclusion of a Cochrane Collaboration review that all types of standard bicycle helmet protect against injury to the brain. The main ground of rebuttal is that my critics take the relevant efficacy of helmets as given and argue from there.
本文是对哈格尔和普莱斯对我2005年文章的批评的回应，在那篇文章中我对考科蓝协作组织综述的结论提出质疑，该综述认为所有类型的标准自行车头盔都能预防脑部受伤。回应的主要依据是，我的批评者将头盔的相关功效视为既定事实，并据此展开论证。
