Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, United States.
Accid Anal Prev. 2009 Jul;41(4):895-6. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2009.03.018. Epub 2009 Apr 19.
In Red Light for Red-Light Cameras?, Alena Erke concludes that "... on the whole, redlight cameras do not seem to be a successful safety measure." Although Erke's survey of the literature appears to have been comprehensive, her review of the studies was not critical. She appears to have accepted the authors' descriptions of their analyses rather than providing readers with her own considered opinion of how valid those analyses were and what their true implications might be. For the meta-analysis leading to her final conclusion, Erke combines data from two questionable studies with three other "well-controlled" studies. Non-peer-reviewed studies received substantial statistical weight in the meta-analysis. These problems likely produce misleading results. If the highway safety field is to succeed in identifying for policymakers those strategies that are most likely to reduce the human tragedy of motor vehicle crashes, we need first to focus on conducting valid research and analysis. Adding precision to the estimated benefits of those strategies through meta-analysis is important, but secondary, and cannot replace the function of a systematic and critical review.
在《红灯对红灯摄像机亮起红灯？》一文中，Alena Erke 的结论是：“总的来说，闯红灯摄像机似乎不是一项成功的安全措施。”尽管 Erke 的文献综述似乎很全面，但她对这些研究的审查并不具有批判性。她似乎接受了作者对其分析的描述，而没有向读者提供自己对这些分析的有效性以及它们可能产生的真正影响的深思熟虑的看法。对于导致她最终结论的荟萃分析，Erke 将来自两项有问题的研究的数据与另外三项“精心控制”的研究结合起来。非同行评审的研究在荟萃分析中获得了大量的统计权重。这些问题可能会产生误导性的结果。如果公路安全领域要成功地为政策制定者确定最有可能减少机动车碰撞造成的人类悲剧的策略，我们首先需要专注于进行有效的研究和分析。通过荟萃分析来提高这些策略的估计收益的准确性很重要，但只是次要的，不能替代系统和批判性审查的功能。
