Wilson Cecilia, Willis Charlene, Hendrikz Joan K, Le Brocque Robyne, Bellamy Nicholas
Centre of National Research on Disability and Rehabilitation Medicine, Mayne Medical School, The University of Queensland, Herston Road, Herston, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, 4006.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Nov 10;2010(11):CD004607. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004607.pub4.
It is estimated that by 2020, road traffic crashes will have moved from ninth to third in the world ranking of burden of disease, as measured in disability adjusted life years. The prevention of road traffic injuries is of global public health importance. Measures aimed at reducing traffic speed are considered essential to preventing road injuries; the use of speed cameras is one such measure.
To assess whether the use of speed cameras reduces the incidence of speeding, road traffic crashes, injuries and deaths.
We searched the following electronic databases covering all available years up to March 2010; the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (WebSPIRS), EMBASE (WebSPIRS), TRANSPORT, IRRD (International Road Research Documentation), TRANSDOC (European Conference of Ministers of Transport databases), Web of Science (Science and Social Science Citation Index), PsycINFO, CINAHL, EconLit, WHO database, Sociological Abstracts, Dissertation Abstracts, Index to Theses.
Randomised controlled trials, interrupted time series and controlled before-after studies that assessed the impact of speed cameras on speeding, road crashes, crashes causing injury and fatalities were eligible for inclusion.
We independently screened studies for inclusion, extracted data, assessed methodological quality, reported study authors' outcomes and where possible, calculated standardised results based on the information available in each study. Due to considerable heterogeneity between and within included studies, a meta-analysis was not appropriate.
Thirty five studies met the inclusion criteria. Compared with controls, the relative reduction in average speed ranged from 1% to 15% and the reduction in proportion of vehicles speeding ranged from 14% to 65%. In the vicinity of camera sites, the pre/post reductions ranged from 8% to 49% for all crashes and 11% to 44% for fatal and serious injury crashes. Compared with controls, the relative improvement in pre/post injury crash proportions ranged from 8% to 50%.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Despite the methodological limitations and the variability in degree of signal to noise effect, the consistency of reported reductions in speed and crash outcomes across all studies show that speed cameras are a worthwhile intervention for reducing the number of road traffic injuries and deaths. However, whilst the the evidence base clearly demonstrates a positive direction in the effect, an overall magnitude of this effect is currently not deducible due to heterogeneity and lack of methodological rigour. More studies of a scientifically rigorous and homogenous nature are necessary, to provide the answer to the magnitude of effect.
据估计,到2020年,道路交通碰撞事故在按伤残调整生命年衡量的疾病负担全球排名中将从第九位升至第三位。预防道路交通伤害具有全球公共卫生重要性。旨在降低交通速度的措施被认为对预防道路伤害至关重要;使用测速摄像头就是这样一种措施。
评估使用测速摄像头是否能降低超速、道路交通碰撞事故、伤害和死亡的发生率。
我们检索了以下电子数据库,涵盖截至2010年3月的所有可用年份;考科蓝图书馆、医学期刊数据库(WebSPIRS)、荷兰医学文摘数据库(WebSPIRS)、交通运输数据库、国际道路研究文献数据库(IRRD)、欧洲交通运输部长会议数据库(TRANSDOC)、科学引文索引数据库(科学和社会科学引文索引)、心理学文摘数据库、护理学与健康照护数据库、经济学文献数据库、世界卫生组织数据库、社会学摘要数据库、学位论文摘要数据库、论文索引数据库。
评估测速摄像头对超速、道路碰撞事故、造成伤害的碰撞事故和死亡影响的随机对照试验、中断时间序列研究和前后对照研究均符合纳入标准。
我们独立筛选纳入研究、提取数据、评估方法学质量、报告研究作者的结果,并在可能的情况下根据每项研究中的可用信息计算标准化结果。由于纳入研究之间和内部存在相当大的异质性,因此不适合进行荟萃分析。
35项研究符合纳入标准。与对照组相比,平均速度的相对降低幅度为1%至15%,超速车辆比例的降低幅度为14%至65%。在摄像头设置地点附近,所有碰撞事故的前后降低幅度为8%至49%,致命和重伤碰撞事故的降低幅度为11%至44%。与对照组相比,伤害性碰撞事故比例的前后相对改善幅度为8%至50%。
尽管存在方法学局限性以及信号与噪声效应程度的变异性,但所有研究报告的速度和碰撞结果降低的一致性表明,测速摄像头是减少道路交通伤害和死亡数量的一项值得采取的干预措施。然而,虽然证据基础清楚地表明了效应的积极方向,但由于异质性和方法学缺乏严谨性,目前无法推断出这种效应的总体大小。需要进行更多科学严谨且同质的研究,以确定效应的大小。