Institute of Transport Economics, Gaustadalléen 21, NO-0349 Oslo, Norway.
Accid Anal Prev. 2011 May;43(3):1245-51. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2011.01.007. Epub 2011 Feb 12.
This paper shows that the meta-analysis of bicycle helmet efficacy reported by Attewell, Glase, and McFadden (Accident Analysis and Prevention 2001, 345-352) was influenced by publication bias and time-trend bias that was not controlled for. As a result, the analysis reported inflated estimates of the effects of bicycle helmets. This paper presents a re-analysis of the study. The re-analysis included: (1) detecting and adjusting for publication bias by means of the trim-and-fill method; (2) ensuring the inclusion of all published studies by means of continuity corrections of estimates of effect rely on zero counts; (3) detecting and trying to account for a time-trend bias in estimates of the effects of bicycle helmets; (4) updating the study by including recently published studies evaluating the effects of bicycle helmets. The re-analysis shows smaller safety benefits associated with the use of bicycle helmets than the original study.
本文表明,Attewell、Glase 和 McFadden(《事故分析与预防》2001 年,第 345-352 页)报告的自行车头盔功效的荟萃分析受到发表偏倚和未控制的时间趋势偏倚的影响。因此,报告的分析结果夸大了自行车头盔的效果。本文对该研究进行了重新分析。重新分析包括:(1)通过修剪和填充方法检测和调整发表偏倚;(2)通过对零计数的效果估计进行连续性校正,确保包括所有已发表的研究;(3)检测并尝试解释自行车头盔效果估计中的时间趋势偏倚;(4)通过纳入最近发表的评估自行车头盔效果的研究来更新研究。重新分析表明,与原始研究相比,使用自行车头盔带来的安全效益较小。