Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety Queensland (CARRS-Q), Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, Queensland, Australia; Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Centre for Future Mobility, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety Queensland (CARRS-Q), Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, Queensland, Australia; Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Centre for Future Mobility, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Accid Anal Prev. 2021 Mar;152:105970. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2021.105970. Epub 2021 Feb 9.
This systematic review sought to assess older adult pedestrian injury severity, injury by anatomical location and incidence proportions, including comparisons to younger age groups when available and provide an analysis of the quality of the existing evidence. A structured search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL, PsycInfo, AMED, Web of Science, LILACS and TRID. STROBE was used to assess the reporting quality of the included studies. Random-effect model meta-analysis served to obtain pooled relative risk, incidence proportions and standardized mean differences for different outcomes due to pedestrian crashes comparing older and younger pedestrians, while meta-analyses could not be conducted for pedestrian falls. We screened 7460 records of which 60 studies (1,012,041 pedestrians) were included in the review. Injured pedestrians 60+ compared to those <60 were found to have a higher relative risk of severe injury (pooled relative risk RR 1.6, 95 % CI: 1.4-2.0 p < 0.001), critical care admission (pooled RR 1.5, 95 %CI: 1.3-1.8 p < 0.001), and fatality (pooled RR of 3.7, 95 % CI: 3.0-4.5 p < 0.001). Pedestrians 60+ also had higher incidence rates of pedestrian falls causing higher injury severity. GRADE was used to evaluate evidence quality, with the results suggesting that the overall quality of the evidence supporting these findings was low. Further research is needed to understand health risks associated with older pedestrian trauma and to develop effective risk management strategies.
本系统评价旨在评估老年行人受伤严重程度、受伤部位和发生率比例,包括与年轻人群组进行比较(如适用),并对现有证据质量进行分析。在 PubMed、Embase、Scopus、CINAHL、PsycInfo、AMED、Web of Science、LILACS 和 TRID 中进行了结构化检索。使用 STROBE 评估纳入研究的报告质量。由于行人碰撞,对于比较老年和年轻行人的不同结局,使用随机效应模型荟萃分析得出汇总相对风险、发生率比例和标准化均数差值,而对于行人跌倒,无法进行荟萃分析。我们筛选了 7460 条记录,其中 60 项研究(1,012,041 名行人)纳入了本次综述。与<60 岁的行人相比,受伤的 60 岁以上行人发生严重伤害的相对风险更高(汇总相对风险 RR 1.6,95 %CI:1.4-2.0 p < 0.001)、需要重症监护(汇总 RR 1.5,95 %CI:1.3-1.8 p < 0.001)和死亡(汇总 RR 3.7,95 %CI:3.0-4.5 p < 0.001)的风险更高。60 岁以上的行人跌倒发生率更高,导致受伤严重程度更高。使用 GRADE 评估证据质量,结果表明,支持这些发现的证据整体质量较低。需要进一步研究以了解与老年行人创伤相关的健康风险,并制定有效的风险管理策略。