School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, University Plain, Norfolk, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK.
Accid Anal Prev. 2010 Mar;42(2):492-9. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2009.09.013. Epub 2009 Oct 23.
We examined road traffic crash (RTC) fatality rate data for the year 2002 with the object of determining which data source offered the most reliable estimates for international comparison work. Data from the World Health Organisation (WHO) (supplied by national health authorities) and the International Road Federation (IRF) (supplied by national transport authorities) was compared. There were large discrepancies between the rates reported. Discrepancies may be partially explained by the under-reporting of fatalities and by different definitions of road fatality. Two methodologies to adjust for these factors in the IRF database were examined. Neither brought consensus with the WHO RTC fatality rate for all nations. While the WHO provide RTC fatality rates for a wider socio-economic and geographical range of nations than the IRF, the methodology used by the WHO to produce estimates for the least economically developed nations may lead to over-estimation of RTC fatality rate. WHO RTC fatality rates were more strongly associated with variables that are thought to explain RTC fatality rate. We suggest that WHO data may be more suitable than the IRF data for international comparison studies. However, it is advisable that data for the least developed nations be excluded from such work.
我们检查了 2002 年道路交通碰撞(RTC)死亡率数据,目的是确定哪个数据源为国际比较工作提供了最可靠的估计。比较了世界卫生组织(WHO)(由国家卫生当局提供)和国际道路联合会(IRF)(由国家交通当局提供)的数据。报告的比率存在很大差异。差异部分可以通过对死亡人数的少报和道路死亡的不同定义来解释。检查了两种用于调整 IRF 数据库中这些因素的方法。对于所有国家,这两种方法都没有与世界卫生组织 RTC 死亡率达成共识。虽然世界卫生组织为更广泛的社会经济和地理范围的国家提供 RTC 死亡率数据,而不是 IRF,但世界卫生组织用于为最不发达国家编制估计数的方法可能导致 RTC 死亡率的高估。世界卫生组织 RTC 死亡率与被认为可以解释 RTC 死亡率的变量之间的关系更为密切。我们建议,与 IRF 数据相比,世界卫生组织的数据可能更适合国际比较研究。但是,最好将最不发达国家的数据排除在这类工作之外。