Fatal injuries in motorcycle riders according to helmet use. The effect of helmets on the incidence and severity of head and cervical spine injuries in motorcycle and moped accident victims: a prospective analysis based on emergency department and trauma centre data. The association of helmet use with the outcome of motorcycle crash injury when controlling for crash/injury severity. Helmet use and motorcycle fatalities in Taiwan. Case-control study of the effectiveness of different types of helmets for the prevention of head injuries among motorcycle riders in Taipei, Taiwan. The impact of two related prevention strategies on head injury reduction among nonfatally injured motorcycle riders, California, 1991-1993. The role of helmets in reducing head injuries from motorcycle accidents: a political or medical issue? Increased risk of death or disability in unhelmeted Wisconsin motorcyclists. Is helmet use beneficial to motorcyclists? Helmet use improves outcomes after motorcycle accidents. Head and neck injuries to motorcycle and moped riders--with special regard to the effect of protective helmets. A prospective study of the impact of helmet usage on motorcycle trauma. Relationship of helmet use and head injuries among motorcycle crash victims in El Paso County, Colorado, 1989-1990. Motorcycle helmets and spinal cord injury: helmet usage and type. Helmet effectiveness in preventing motorcycle driver and passenger fatalities. Association of helmet use with death in motorcycle crashes: a matched-pair cohort study. Crash severity, injury patterns, and helmet use in adolescent motorcycle riders. The impact of motorcycle helmet use. [Head injuries in traffic accidents with emphasis on the comparisons between motorcycle-helmet users and non-users]. A case-control study of the effectiveness of bicycle safety helmets in preventing facial injury. Patterns of injury in helmeted and nonhelmeted motorcyclists. Craniofacial trauma in injured motorcyclists: the impact of helmet usage. Effectiveness of bicycle safety helmets in preventing head injuries. A case-control study. Motorcycle-related trauma and helmet usage in North Dakota. A case-control study of the effectiveness of bicycle safety helmets. Motorcycle helmets and head injuries in Kentucky, 1995-2000. Motorcycle helmet use and injury outcome and hospitalization costs from crashes in Washington State. Risk factors of fatality in motor vehicle traffic accidents. Effectiveness of bicycle safety helmets in preventing serious facial injury. Motorcycle helmets and spinal injuries: dispelling the myth. Bicycle safety helmet legislation and bicycle-related non-fatal injuries in California. Helmets, injuries and cultural definitions: motorcycle injury in urban Indonesia. Head and facial injuries after low-speed motor-cycle accidents. Effectiveness of bicycle helmets in preventing head injury in children: case-control study. Epidemiologic features of facial injuries among motorcyclists. Injury patterns in cyclists attending an accident and emergency department: a comparison of helmet wearers and non-wearers. Physicians promoting bicycle helmets for children: a randomized trial. Helmet use, patterns of injury, medical outcome, and costs among motorcycle drivers in Maryland. Fatalities from non-use of seat belts and helmets in Greece: a nationwide appraisal. Hellenic Road Traffic Police. Trends in helmet use and head injuries in San Diego County: the effect of bicycle helmet legislation. The effectiveness of bicyclist helmets: a study of 1710 casualties. Motor cycle helmets and facial injuries. Hospital cost is reduced by motorcycle helmet use. Evaluation of a promotional strategy to increase bicycle helmet use by children. Non-helmeted motorcyclists: a burden to society? A study using the National Trauma Data Bank.
Helmets have been shown to be effective in preventing head injuries in motorcyclists, but some studies have suggested that helmets may cause injury to parts of the head or neck because they add mass to the head.
                This study examined patterns of fatal injuries in helmeted and unhelmeted motorcyclists.
                Coroner reports, hospital records, and police reports for motorcyclists fatally injured in crashes from July 1, 1988 through October 31, 1989 were examined. All injury diagnoses were abstracted and coded to the 1990 version of The Abbreviated Injury Scale and the International Classification of Diseases, 9th revision.
                Cerebral injury, intracranial hemorrhage, face, skull vault, and cervical spine injuries were more likely to be found in fatally injured unhelmeted motorcyclists than in helmeted motorcyclists.
                These results expand earlier reports showing that helmets provide protection for all types and locations of head injuries, and show that they are not associated with increased neck injury occurrence. The aim of this prospective study was to quantify the anatomic severity of head and cervical spine injuries in hospital admitted victims of motorcycle and moped accidents in relation to helmet use and controlled for non-head injuries (i.e. kinetic impact). Two hundred and twenty-three patients entered the study group, of which 152 were motorcyclists and 71 were moped riders. Our results reveal that helmets do prevent head injury in motorcycle and moped accidents, especially in those crashes involving relatively low kinetic energy transfers. Helmet use does not lead to an increase of the incidence or severity of cervical spine injury. As a result compulsory helmet laws should not be limited to motorcyclists but also focus on all moped riders and probably also bicyclists. This study illustrates that emergency departments can provide important epidemiological information for injury control purposes. However, the epidemiological use of emergency department data and hospital data in general requires cautiousness. Confounding is a common problem which should be dealt with during analysis. Many studies have reported that helmet use by motorcycle riders significantly decreases their risk of head injury, death, and disability in the event of a crash. However, these studies have not controlled for crash severity and thus do not conclusively show the value of helmet use by motorcycle riders. Using data from a statewide trauma registry, the present study examines the association of helmet use with various outcomes of motorcycle crashes, controlling for overall crash severity as measured by a modified Injury Severity Score. The results show that in crashes where the overall degree of injury was comparable, the risk of head injury in hospitalized motorcyclists was nearly twice as high for unhelmeted riders as it was for helmeted riders, thus confirming the protective effects of helmet use. However, there were no significant differences in various measurements of resource utilization, including days in hospital, hospital charges, and need for post-hospital rehabilitation. A higher incidence of extremity injuries among the helmeted riders may account for their failure to demonstrate consistently lower resource utilization, despite lower rates of head injury. Motorcycle deaths accounted for more than half of total traffic fatalities in Taiwan in 2002. This study uses the police-reported crash data from Taiwan between 1999 and 2001 to estimate the effectiveness of helmets, simultaneously taking into account of sample selection bias. Sample selection arises because helmet usage will affect the probability of death or injury, which in turn influences whether a crash is included in the data. The results show that sample selection does not seriously bias the estimate of helmet effectiveness and helmets reduce the probability of death in a crash by 40%, which is higher than what was previously found. Without helmets, the number of motorcyclists killed in 2001 would have jumped by 51%. The estimated proportion of helmeted motorcyclists has increased from 71 to 78% between 1999 and 2001, suggesting that helmet use is rising after the implementation of mandatory helmet law in 1997. Also, helmets significantly reduce the likelihood of head and neck injuries in a crash by 53%, and lead to a 71% reduction in the probability of death caused by head and neck injuries. A total of 1,351 victims of motorcycle accidents, brought to one of 15 hospitals responsible for emergency care in Taipei, Taiwan, between August 1 and October 15, 1990, were enrolled in a case-control study to investigate the effectiveness of different types of helmets for the prevention of head injuries. A total of 562 of those with head injuries were assigned to the case group, while the remaining 789 victims without head injuries were considered as emergency room controls. The case group was subdivided into daytime and evening cases, according to the time of accident. For each daytime case, we took four pictures of passing motorcycles at the same time and place during the week after each accident. Of the 254 daytime cases, we successfully took pictures for 224 (88%) and identified 1,094 motorcycle riders in the pictures as street controls. Logistic regression analyses were used to determine the roles of the following variables in predicting risk of head injury: age, sex, riding position, weather, place of accident, helmet type, and motorcycle type, and status of helmet wearing. The relative risk of head injury among motorcycle riders was significantly reduced by wearing a full-face helmet, but not by wearing a full- or a partial-coverage helmet. Although the traumatic injury death rate in the United States decreased during the last 20 years, the percent of all injury deaths attributable to brain injuries has remained steady. Head injuries are a leading cause of injury among motorcycle riders in crashes, and the helmet is an effective measure to reduce these injuries. To reduce the burden and cost of motorcycle injuries, many states have increased helmet use by introducing mandatory helmet legislation. This report presents evidence on the effects of the motorcycle helmet and helmet use legislation--two interrelated prevention strategies which decrease traumatic brain injury among motorcycle riders. Nonfatally injured motorcyclists were included if they crashed between January 1, 1991 and December 31, 1993 and were treated in one of 18 hospitals in 10 California counties. Medical records for all injured motorcyclists admitted to these 18 hospitals and those treated in the emergency department and released in eight of these hospitals were individually reviewed. Complete lists of injury diagnoses for each rider were coded according to the 1990 Abbreviated Injury Severity Scale by trained clinical staff. Before the universal helmet law was introduced (when only a third of injured riders wore helmets) 38.2% of riders sustained head injuries. When helmet use increased to over 85% of injured riders following the law, less than 25% of riders sustained head injuries. Both the severity and the number of head injuries per individual rider decreased after the mandatory helmet use law led to increased helmet use. Riders wearing helmets suffered fewer skull fractures, fewer intracranial injuries, had less frequent and shorter periods of loss of consciousness, more favorable GCS scores, and shorter hospital stays. Mandatory motorcycle helmet use laws are an effective mechanism to increase helmet use among riders and thus prevent head and brain injuries resulting from motorcycle crashes. The cases of 311 motorcycle accident victims who were seen at a major trauma center over 17 months were reviewed. The types and severity of injuries were standardized according to the Injury Severity Score (ISS) for motor vehicle accidents. Victims were categorized into groups: helmet or no helmet and major, minor or no head injury. Major injury was defined as a 3 on the Abbreviated Injury Scale for "head" (loss of consciousness for at least 15 minutes with or without skull fracture and with or without neurological deficit). THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSIONS ARE DRAWN: (1) The death rate for those with and without helmets was not significantly different, (2) the victims of fatal accidents had identical total ISS scores regardless of the presence of helmets, (3) the chance of sustaining a severe head injury was significantly higher in the no helmet group and (4) the incidence of long-term neurological defect was three times greater in the no helmet group. The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationships among motorcycle rider helmet, alcohol use and the full spectrum of health outcomes following crashes.
                Data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration-sponsored Crash Outcome Data Evaluation System (CODES) for Wisconsin, 2002, were used to study 2462 motorcycle crash victims. Logistic regression models were used to assess the relationship of helmet and alcohol use with outcomes.
                Compared to helmeted motorcycle riders, unhelmeted riders were more likely to require inpatient hospitalization (Relative Risk Ratio [RRR] = 1.4; 95% confidence interval [CI]:1.1-1.8) or die (RR = 1.9, 95% CI:1.0-3.7) but equally likely to be treated in emergency departments. Injury patterns differed by helmet use. Unhelmeted riders were more likely to suffer injuries of the head (odds ratio [OR] = 2.3, 95% CI:1.5-3.3) or face (OR = 3.0, 95% CI:2.1-4.2) than helmeted riders. No difference was observed in other injuries, including spine/neck injuries. Reported alcohol use was more prevalent among patients who were inpatients or died, and was associated with higher likelihood of not wearing a helmet (OR = 7.0, 95% CI:4.8-12.9).
                Motorcycle riders who are inpatients or die in a crash are less likely to be helmeted and more likely to sustain head or face injuries. Alcohol use is associated with unhelmeted riding and increased risk of poor outcomes. These findings support policy and educational efforts promoting helmet use, which seek to decrease these tragedies. This study included 83 motorcyclists, helmeted and nonhelmeted, involved in crashes. All these patients were flown to a major trauma center in the Northeast (Hartford Hospital, Connecticut) directly from the scene by a helicopter ambulance service (LifeStar). The study showed that the majority of these patients were male and under the age of 30 years. Twenty-seven had blood alcohol levels above the legal limit. Sixty-nine percent were nonhelmeted and, statistically, a significant number in this category had a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of 8 or under. Cervical spine injuries were discovered in only six patients. Nine of the ten patients declared dead on arrival (DOA) were nonhelmeted. We conclude that helmets provide protection and certainly do not increase the incidence of cervical spine injuries. To determine the effects of motorcycle helmet use on the outcome of patients admitted to a Level I trauma center, we studied patient outcomes and demographic and epidemiologic variables of 474 patients injured in motorcycle collisions and treated at such a center over a 45-month period. Of those involved in a motorcycle collision, 50% were not wearing a helmet, 23% were wearing a helmet, and in 27% helmet use was unknown. Those who were wearing a helmet had fewer and less severe head and facial injuries, required fewer days on a ventilator, and sustained no serious neck injuries; fewer patients who wore helmets were discharged with disability, and hospital charges were lower. These data support the need for both increased public education regarding helmet use and mandatory helmet use legislation. In a consecutive series of 132 motorcycle and moped riders killed in 1977-1983 in southern Sweden and examined post mortem, almost half of the fatal injuries of the head and neck occurred remote from the point of impact, namely certain intracranial injuries without fractures, ring fractures of the base of the skull, disruption of the junction of the head and neck and injuries of the cervical spine. Ring fractures of the base of the skull were noticeably more frequent in motorcyclists than in car occupants who died. Injuries occurring remote from the point of impact were often the result of impacts against the anterior part of the head, especially against the face. All 5 riders suffering disruption of the junction of the head and neck were helmeted, which suggests that the helmet may promote such injuries. In some of these cases, no sign of impact against the head could be detected. The inertia of the head, enhanced by the helmet, is supposed to contribute to some of these injuries, which calls into question the protection provided by the helmet. Fatal head injuries at the point of impact were mostly found on the lateral-posterior part of the head. These injuries were often irrespective of whether or not a helmet was used. The points of impact were found mainly rung around the head. Protective helmets should be improved in order to give better protection against injuries at the site of impact, especially in the above-mentioned area, to give better protection of the face and to increase energy-absorbing capacity.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS) To determine the effect of the use of a motorcycle helmet on reducing the mortality, morbidity, and health care costs resulting from motorcycle crashes.
                A prospective, multicenter study of all eligible motorcycle crash victims.
                The emergency departments of eight medical centers across the state of Illinois, including representatives from urban, rural, teaching, and community facilities.
                All motorcycle crash victims presenting less than 24 hours after injury for whom helmet information was known. Data were collected from April 1 through October 31, 1988.
                Fifty-eight of 398 patients (14.6%) were helmeted, and 340 (85.4%) were not. The nonhelmeted patients had higher Injury Severity Scores (11.9 vs 7.02), sustained head/neck injuries more frequently (41.7 vs 24.1%), and had lower Glasgow Coma Scores (13.73 vs 14.51). Twenty-five of the 26 fatalities were nonhelmeted patients. By logistic regression, the lack of helmet use was found to be a major risk factor for increased severity of injury. A 23% increase in health care costs was demonstrated for nonhelmeted patients (average charges $7,208 vs $5,852).
                Helmet use may reduce the overall severity of injury and the incidence of head injuries resulting from motorcycle crashes. A trend toward higher health care costs was demonstrated in the nonhelmeted patients. A case-control study was conducted in El Paso County, Colorado to estimate differences in risk of head injury among persons in motorcycle crashes who were or were not wearing helmets. There were 71 cases, motorcyclists with head injuries from crashes, and 417 controls, motorcyclists in crashes without head injuries. Motorcyclists not wearing helmets were 2.4 times as likely to sustain head injuries (95% confidence limits: 1.23, 4.70) than motorcyclists wearing helmets. This odds ratio was adjusted for age and crash characteristics, using logistic regression. Alcohol intoxication and severity of motorcycle damage were also associated with significantly elevated odds ratios related to sustaining a head injury. The objective of this study was to assess the role of helmets and helmet type in relation to injury to the cervical spinal cord. It was based on a consecutive series of 110 motorcyclists with neurological damage to the spinal cord admitted alive (referred to as acute survivors) to a specialist spinal cord injuries unit at an Australian hospital. Cases were those with injury to the cervical spinal cord and controls were those with injury to the cord of other segments of the spine. The study showed that there was no significant difference in the odds of cervical spinal cord injury among unhelmeted and helmeted motorcyclist acute survivors. In addition, it confirmed the findings of a recently published Australian fatality study demonstrating no difference in the odds of cervical spinal cord injury among full-face and open-face helmet wearers. These results contrasted with the findings of earlier studies. In consideration of the limitations of existing research on the role of helmets in spinal cord injury, further study is required based on a larger series or a series having a higher proportion of non-wearers and open-face helmet wearers, including both survivors and those killed, and including assessment of cord and non-cord spinal injuries separately, helmet type, head impact, and helmet retention. Helmet effectiveness in preventing fatalities to motorcycle drivers and passengers was determined by applying the double pair comparison method to the Fatal Accident Reporting System (FARS) data for 1975 through 1986. Motorcycles with a driver and a passenger, at least one of whom was killed, were used. In order to reduce as much as possible potentially confounding effects due to the dependence of survivability on sex and age, the analysis is confined to male drivers (there were insufficient female driver data), and to cases in which the driver and passenger age do not differ by more than three years. Motorcycle helmet effectiveness estimates are found to be relatively unaffected by performing the analyses in a number of ways different from that indicated above. It was found that helmets are (28 +/- 8)% effective in preventing fatalities to motorcycle riders (the error is one standard error), the effectiveness being similar for male and female passengers, and similar for drivers and passengers. An additional result found was that the fatality risk in the driver seat exceeds that in the passenger seat by (26 +/- 2)%. The 28% effectiveness found generates calculated fatality increases from repeal of mandatory helmet-wearing laws that are compatible with observed increases. The association of helmet use with death in a motorcycle crash can be estimated using matched-pair cohort methods. By estimating effects among naturally matched pairs on the same motorcycle, one can account for potential confounding by motorcycle characteristics, crash characteristics, and other factors that may influence the outcome. The authors used Fatality Analysis Reporting System data, from 1980 through 1998, for motorcycles that crashed with two riders and either the driver or the passenger, or both, died. For their main analysis, the authors estimated the relative risk of death using conditional Poisson regression. The relative risk of death, accounting for the matching on motorcycle and adjusted for age, sex, and seat position, for a helmeted rider compared with an unhelmeted rider was 0.61 (95% confidence interval: 0.54, 0.70). The authors suggest that conditional Poisson regression is useful for the analysis of traffic crash data, where occupants are naturally matched in a vehicle and where crash-related confounders may be difficult or impossible to measure. This study examined crash severity and injury patterns between helmeted and unhelmeted adolescent motorcycle riders.
                Among an initial population of 4,721 junior college students, 1,284 students were involved in 1,889 motorcycle crashes during a 20-month follow-up period. Crash severity was measured by both the type of collision object and the repair cost of motorcycle damage.
                The incidence rates of crash, injury, hospitalization, and deaths per 1,000 person-years in the cohort were 358, 104, 14, and 1.3, respectively. Compared with helmeted riders, unhelmeted riders had more noncollisions and fewer collisions with a moving car but there was no significant difference in repair cost of motorcycle damage between these groups. More injuries to the external skin, face, and head and more severe injuries occurred in unhelmeted than in helmeted riders. Among crashes resulting in hospitalization/death, more injuries to the face and head occurred in unhelmeted riders than in helmeted riders.
                Crashes involving unhelmeted riders were not more severe but more frequently involved face and head injuries than crashes involving helmeted riders. Mandatory motorcycle helmet-use legislation is supported by the high morbidity of motorcycle trauma and its cost to society. Opponents argue, however, that the majority of motorcycle trauma morbidity and costs are the result of injuries to body regions other than the head. Previous data do not address this argument because they fail to control for differences in non-head injury severity (i.e., kinetic impact) between helmeted and unhelmeted patients. This study investigates the impact of helmet use on the morbidity and cost of motorcycle trauma, after controlling for non-head injuries. A retrospective review of all patients admitted to Harborview Medical Center with motorcycle trauma from 1/1/85 to 1/1/90 was performed. Non-head injury severity was determined by calculating an ISS that did not include head injury. This non-head ISS was used to control for injury severity below the neck. Four hundred twenty-five patients were identified. Stratified analysis showed that helmet use decreased the need for and duration of mechanical ventilation, the length of ICU stay, the need for rehabilitation, and prevented head injury. Costs of acute care were significantly less in helmeted patients. Regression analysis, controlling for age, gender, and blood alcohol level (as well as non-head injury severity), confirmed that acute costs were 40% less with helmet use. Motor-vehicle incidents in Taiwan are a major cause of head injuries. Our objective was to analyze the characteristics of head injuries caused by motor vehicle accidents in terms of the injured person's demographic characteristics, time and types of crash, injury severity on the abbreviated injury scale (AIS), medical cost and benefits of helmet protection. For this purpose we conducted an epidemiologic survey of 2451 consecutive victims of traffic accidents, coming to, or managed at, the emergency care department of a large Taipei metropolitan hospital in 1990. The results showed that the most common cause of head injury in traffic accidents was a motorcycle incident. Motorcycle accident injured patients were generally young males, laborers or students. Most head injuries occurred between 16:00 and 23:00, and peaking at 21:00 in a day. Forty-three points four percent of patients were admitted, major head injury fatalities occurred within one week of the collision. The elderly or patients with high AIS comprised most nonsurvivors. According to our data, helmet usage was about 14% overall. Helmetless young riders were numerous among the total victims. A significant difference was noted in the severity of injury of helmeted users of motorcycles, compared with those who wore no helmet. As expected, patients who did not wear a helmet had a greater AIS average and higher rate of fatality. Forty-one of the 42 fatalities were patients who had been riding on motorcycles without helmets. Helmets provide adequate protection and reduce severity of injury, and medical cost for motorcycle collisions. In a case-control study we sought to assess the potential effectiveness of helmets in preventing facial injuries. Our study included 212 bicyclists with facial injuries and 319 controls with injuries to other body areas, who were treated in emergency rooms of five Seattle area hospitals over a one-year period. Using regression analyses to control for age, sex, education and income, accident severity, and cycling experience we found no definite effect of helmets on the risk of serious facial injury (odds ratio 0.81; 95 percent confidence interval = 0.45, 1.5), but protection against serious injuries to the upper face (odds ratio 0.27; 95% CI = 0.1, 0.8). No protection was found against serious injuries to the lower face. The independent effect of helmet use on facial injury was difficult to isolate due to the association of head and facial injuries. Our results suggest that bicycle helmets as presently designed may have some protective effect against serious upper facial injuries. In the present study, the incidence of severe brain injury was 600 percent higher for patients riding without a helmet and the incidence of all brain injuries was nearly twice as high in the nonhelmeted riders. All surviving patients with severe brain injury sustained residual long-term disability. The incidence of injury and death was much higher for motorcyclists than for occupants of automobiles involved in accidents. Riding a motorcycle is dangerous and riding without a helmet is fool-hardy. Helmets also protect the face, as facial fractures were twice as common in the nonhelmeted riders. There were no significant differences between nonhelmeted and helmeted motorcyclists in terms of overall injury as measured by an injury severity score of 16 or greater. Orthopedic injuries, in this study, were so common that orthopedic surgeons performed more major operations than all other surgical specialists combined. Depth of orthopedic coverage is essential to treat significant numbers of injured motorcyclists. Neurosurgeons are key members of a trauma care team. Helmet laws would help us utilize our limited neurosurgical capacity more effectively by reducing the incidence of brain injury. Medical professionals must educate the public regarding the societal and personal cost of unhelmeted motorcycle riding. Legislation mandating helmet usage for motorcycle riders must be sought. Helmets are effective in decreasing maxillofacial trauma in motorcycle crashes. The impact, however, of motorcycle crashes on the location and patterns of craniofacial injuries among helmeted versus unhelmeted patients has not been examined. In the present study, 331 injured motorcyclists were evaluated to compare the incidence of craniofacial and spinal injury in 77 (23%) helmeted and 254 (77%) nonhelmeted patients. Nonhelmeted motorcyclists were three times more likely to suffer facial fractures (5.2% vs. 16.1%) than those wearing helmets (p < 0.01). Skull fracture occurred in only one helmeted patient (1.2%), compared with 36 (12.3%) of nonhelmeted patients (p < or = 0.01). The incidence of spinal injury was not significantly different between the two groups. Blood alcohol levels demonstrated that 12% of the helmeted group were legally intoxicated (blood alcohol level > 100 mg/dL), in contrast to 37.9% of the nonhelmeted motorcyclists (p < or = 0.01). Failure to wear a helmet resulted in a significantly higher incidence of craniofacial injury among patients involved in motorcycle crashes, but did not affect spinal injury or mortality. Alcohol usage seemed to correlate with failure to use helmets. Helmet use should be legally mandated on a national level for all motorcyclists. To examine the protective effectiveness of bicycle helmets in 4 different age groups of bicyclists, in crashes involving motor vehicles, and by helmet type and certification standards.
                Prospective case-control study
                Emergency departments (EDs) in 7 Seattle, Wash, area hospitals between March 1, 1992, and August 31, 1994.
                Case subjects were all bicyclists treated in EDs for head injuries, all who were hospitalized, and all who died at the scene. Control subjects were bicyclists treated for nonhead injuries.
                There were 3390 injured bicyclists in the study; 29% of cases and 56% of controls were helmeted. Risk of head injury in helmeted vs unhelmeted cyclists adjusted for age and motor vehicle involvement indicate a protective effect of 69% to 74% for helmets for 3 different categories of head injury: any head injury (odds ratio [OR], 0.31; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26-0.37), brain injury (OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.25-0.48), or severe brain injury (OR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.14-0.48). Adjusted ORs for each of 4 age groups (<6 y, 6-12 y, 13-19 y, and > or = 20 years) indicate similar levels of helmet protection by age (OR range, 0.27-0.40). Helmets were equally effective in crashes involving motor vehicles (OR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.20-0.48) and those not involving motor vehicles (OR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.20-0.39). There was no effect modification by age or motor vehicle involvement (P=.7 and P=.3). No significant differences were found for the protective effect of hard-shell, thin-shell, or no-shell helmets (P=.5).
                Bicycle helmets, regardless of type, provide substantial protection against head injuries for cyclists of all ages involved in crashes, including crashes involving motor vehicles. A descriptive epidemiologic study utilizing a multi-disciplinary reporting format was undertaken to assess the impact of helmet usage on motorcycle trauma in North Dakota from 1977 through 1980. This approach yielded an 82.6% reporting increase compared to previous data collection techniques. More than 60% of the 2,934 crashes involved unhelmeted cyclists. Two-thirds of all crashes resulted in injury, with head, neck, and face (HNF) trauma accounting for 21.4% of all lesions. Compared to their helmeted counterparts, helmetless riders suffered HNF trauma 2.30 times as often, and were 3.19 times as susceptible to fatal injuries. the number of injuries and the severity of trauma were significantly higher (P = .01) for those individuals not wearing helmets. A substantial decline in usage occurred in those under 18 years of age, despite the legal requirement that this group wear protective headgear. Bicycling accidents cause many serious injuries and, in the United States, about 1300 deaths per year, mainly from head injuries. Safety helmets are widely recommended for cyclists, but convincing evidence of their effectiveness is lacking. Over one year we conducted a case-control study in which the case patients were 235 persons with head injuries received while bicycling, who sought emergency care at one of five hospitals. One control group consisted of 433 persons who received emergency care at the same hospitals for bicycling injuries not involving the head. A second control group consisted of 558 members of a large health maintenance organization who had had bicycling accidents during the previous year. Seven percent of the case patients were wearing helmets at the time of their head injuries, as compared with 24 percent of the emergency room controls and 23 percent of the second control group. Of the 99 cyclists with serious brain injury only 4 percent wore helmets. In regression analyses to control for age, sex, income, education, cycling experience, and the severity of the accident, we found that riders with helmets had an 85 percent reduction in their risk of head injury (odds ratio, 0.15; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.07 to 0.29) and an 88 percent reduction in their risk of brain injury (odds ratio, 0.12; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.04 to 0.40). We conclude that bicycle safety helmets are highly effective in preventing head injury. Helmets are particularly important for children, since they suffer the majority of serious head injuries from bicycling accidents. Motorcycle crashes are common occurrences in Kentucky, and often result in injury or death. The use of motorcycle helmets may improve injury outcomes. Data collected from University of Louisville Hospital trauma center were used to investigate the association between motorcycle helmet use and traumatic brain injuries (TBI), severe head injuries, and acute care hospital charges. Multiple logistic and linear regression models were used for analysis. Motorcycle drivers who did not wear helmets were more likely to incur a TBI (OR = 4.33, 95% CI: 2.60-7.20), severe head injuries (OR = 4.36, 95% CI: 2.58-7.37), and higher acute care hospital charges (beta = $26,618, 95% CI: $8670-$44,565). Kentucky's failure to require mandatory helmet use may increase incidence of TBI and severe head injuries among motorcyclists, and cost state government millions of dollars to pay for care for uninsured or Medicaid patients. The incidence, type, severity, and costs of crash-related injuries requiring hospitalization or resulting in death were compared for helmeted and unhelmeted motorcyclists.
                This was a retrospective cohort study of injured motorcyclists in Washington State in 1989. Motorcycle crash data were linked to statewide hospitalization and death data.
                The 2090 crashes included in this study resulted in 409 hospitalizations (20%) and 59 fatalities (28%). Although unhelmeted motorcyclists were only slightly more likely to be hospitalized overall, they were more severely injured, nearly three times more likely to have been head injured, and nearly four times more likely to have been severely or critically head injured than helmeted riders. Unhelmeted riders were also more likely to be readmitted to a hospital for follow-up treatment and to die from their injuries. The average hospital stay for unhelmeted motorcyclists was longer, and cost more per case; the cost of hospitalization for unhelmeted motorcyclists was 60% more overall ($3.5 vs $2.2 million).
                Helmet use is strongly associated with reduced probability and severity of injury, reduced economic impact, and a reduction in motorcyclist deaths. The present study was conducted to evaluate the effect of potential risk factors--such as driving without a license, alcohol use, speed, seat belt, and helmet--use on fatality in motor vehicle traffic accidents. Unconditional multiple logistic regression analysis was employed to take these factors and age into account, simultaneously. The effect of driving without a license was not significant after controlling for other factors. The deleterious effect of alcohol use remained significant for male motorcar drivers after controlling for speed and seat belt use. Magnitude of the risk due to speed was slightly reduced after controlling for alcohol use and seat belt use, but the striking effect remained highly significant. Speed was the strongest risk factor of fatality for both motorcycles and motorcars and for both sexes and seemed to be more critical for motorcyclists than motorcar drivers. The protective effect of seat belt use was unchanged after adjustment for alcohol and speed, and the effectiveness of seat belt use was demonstrated for motorcar drivers. The effectiveness of helmet use for male motorcyclists was dependent upon speed at the time of the accidents, suggesting an interaction between helmet use and speed. Helmet use was definitely protective at a low speed of < or = 50 km/h, but ineffective at high speeds of over 50 km/h. To assess the effectiveness of helmets in preventing facial injuries.
                Case-control study between March 1, 1992, and August 31, 1994.
                Seven Seattle, Wash, area hospitals including the regional trauma center and a large staff-model health maintenance organization.
                Cases were patients with serious facial injury, ie, fractures or lacerations; controls were patients who had injuries other than facial. Minor facial injuries were excluded to avoid ascertainment bias in those seeking care for serious injuries to other areas.
                Serious facial injuries occurred to 700 (20.7%) patients. Helmets were used by 47% of cases and 57% of controls. After adjusting for age, sex, speed, and surface, we found that helmets reduced the risk of injury to the upper face (odds ratio [OR], 0.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26-0.49) and middle face (OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.24-0.50) but had no significant effect on serious injury to the lower face (OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.72-1.07).
                Bicycle helmets offer substantial protection for the upper and mid face in addition to their known protection against head injuries. Helmets do not appear to offer any protection for the lower face. To determine the relationship between spinal injuries and helmet use in motorcycle trauma.
                Retrospective case series.
                Twenty-eight hospitals in four midwestern states--Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska and Wisconsin--representing urban, suburban, and rural settings.
                Consecutive sample of motorcyclists treated at the participating centers.
                None.
                The major variables evaluated were helmet use, ethanol use, and significant head or spinal injuries.
                1,153 cases were analyzed. Helmet use was not significantly associated with spinal injuries (odds ratio, 1.12; 95% confidence intervals, 0.79, 1.58) whereas head injury was markedly decreased with helmet use (odds ratio, 0.35; 95% confidence intervals, 0.23, 0.53). Ethanol use was a significant variable in both head (odds ratio, 3.89) and spinal (odds ratio, 2.41) injuries.
                In contrast to a significant protective relationship identified for head injuries, helmet use was not associated with an increased or decreased occurrence rate of spinal injuries in motorcycle trauma. The objective of this study was to determine whether the bicycle safety helmet legislation in California, enacted in 1994, was associated with statistically significant reductions in head injuries among bicyclists aged 17 years and under who were subjected to the law. The study used 44,069 patient discharge cases from all public hospitals in California, from 1991 through 2000, and a case-control design to make direct comparisons between those subjected to the law (Youth) and those who were not (Adult) across the pre- and post-legislation periods. An aggregate data analysis approach and a pooled disaggregate data fitting technique using multinomial logit models were applied. The legislation was found to be associated with a reduction of 18.2% (99% confidence interval: 11.5-24.3%) in the proportion of traumatic brain injuries (Head-TBI) among Youth bicyclists. The proportions of other head, face, and neck injuries were not significantly changed across the pre- and post-legislation periods in this age group but there was a corresponding increase of 9% (5-13%) in the proportion of all other injuries. On the other hand, there was no statistically significant change in the proportions of injury outcomes for Adult bicyclists. The youngest riders, aged 0-9 years, had the greatest decrease in the proportion of Head-TBI. The reduction was the same for motor vehicle and non-motor-vehicle-related incidents. The bicycle safety helmet legislation was associated with a decrease in the likelihood of Head-TBI for non-urban residents but not for urbanites, for males but not for females, and for Whites, Asians, and Hispanics, but not Blacks and others. This paper examines motorcycle helmet use and injuries in a developing country with a helmet law. Data were collected by systematic street observations and interviews with motorcyclists and supplemented with motorcycle injury data from a 1 month study of all patients coming to emergency departments in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Observations show that 89% of motorcycle drivers (N = 9242) wore helmets; only 20% of the passengers (N = 3541) did. However, only 55% of the drivers wore helmets correctly (e.g. with chin strap buckled). Differences in time and place were noted in interviews when motorcyclists reported wearing helmets least at night and when no police were around; various reasons for not wearing helmets included physical discomfort and absence of police surveillance. Data from emergency departments found that motorcycles were involved in 64% of all traffic accident injuries, comprising 33% of total trauma patients presenting to emergency departments. Injury Severity Scores were calculated for the 26% of motorcycle injuries which were admitted to the hospital, with 60% having scores of 1-8, 27% 9-15, and 9% > 15. We conclude that although motorcycle drivers appear to comply with the motorcycle helmet law, it is a "token compliance." Less than 50% of riders were maximally protected by helmets and very little safety consciousness was found among drivers. Suggestions for improving helmet use that take cultural definitions of wearing helmets into account are presented for future research. In the United Kingdom there appears to be little available information concerning the prevalence and the patterns of head and of facial injuries sustained in road traffic accidents by motorcyclists wearing protective helmets. The present preliminary survey was of 56 accidents in urban traffic. 50 per cent of surviving motor-cyclists incurred head injuries. Soft tissue facial wounds were sustained by 38 per cent and fractures of facial bone and teeth by 11 per cent of the injured. The majority of the accidents occurred at speeds of 30 m.p.h. or less to riders of machines of small cubic capacity. Motor-cyclists wearing open-face style helmets had more facial damage after accidents than those wearing full-face style helmets. The results of the survey suggest the need for research into the degree of protection against head and facial injuries offered by the various helmet styles and their constituent materials. To examine the risk of injury to the head and the effect of wearing helmets in bicycle accidents among children.
                Case-control study by questionnaire completed by the children and their carers.
                Two large children's hospitals in Brisbane, Australia.
                445 children presenting with bicycle related injuries during 15 April 1991 to 30 June 1992. The cases comprised 102 children who had sustained injury to the upper head including the skull, forehead and scalp or loss of consciousness. The controls were 278 cyclists presenting with injuries other than to the head or face. A further 65 children with injuries to the face were considered as an extra comparison group.
                Cause and type of injury, wearing of helmet.
                Most children (230) were injured after losing control and falling from their bicycle. Only 31 had contact with another moving vehicle. Children with head injury were significantly more likely to have made contact with a moving vehicle than control children (19 (19%) v 12 (4%), P < 0.001). Head injuries were more likely to occur on paved surfaces than on grass, gravel, or dirt. Wearing a helmet reduced the risk of head injury by 63% (95% confidence interval 34% to 80%) and of loss of consciousness by 86% (62% to 95%).
                The risk of head injury in bicycle accidents is reduced among children wearing a helmet. Current helmet design maximises protection in the type of accident most commonly occurring in this study. Legislation enforcing helmet use among children should be considered. To describe the extent, nature, and severity of facial injuries among motorcyclists injured in a crash requiring hospital treatment.
                The study population consisted of 5,790 motorcycle riders who sustained a nonfatal crash injury during 1991, 1992, or 1993 in 10 California counties. The injured riders were identified in 28 hospitals during 1991 and 1992 and in 18 of these 28 hospitals in 1993. Information was collected from crash reports and hospital records. All injuries were coded according to the 1990 Abbreviated Injury Scale.
                Facial injury was present in 24.3% of injured riders, a high proportion of them young men. Among riders wearing helmets, 36.8% had facial injuries, compared with 53.8% of those not wearing helmets. Soft tissue injuries and facial fractures were present in 72% and 22% of the injured, respectively. The maxilla (22%), orbit (16%), and nasal (16%) bones were the most frequently fractured facial bones. The frequency of multiple facial injuries, severity of facial injuries, and incidence of high-severity facial fractures was greater among nonhelmeted riders compared with helmeted riders. Upper facial fractures were more common among riders without helmets compared with those wearing helmets.
                This study provides evidence of the protective value of helmets to reduce risk of facial injury. Information on the positive effect of facial injury sparing provided by helmet use should be incorporated into helmet promotion programs. To study circumstances of bicycle accidents and nature of injuries sustained and to determine effect of safety helmets on pattern of injuries.
                Prospective study of patients with cycle related injuries.
                Accident and emergency department of teaching hospital.
                1040 patients with complete data presenting to the department in one year with cycle related injuries, of whom 114 had worn cycle helmets when accident occurred.
                Type of accident and nature and distribution of injuries among patients with and without safety helmets.
                There were no significant differences between the two groups with respect to type of accident or nature and distribution of injuries other than those to the head. Head injury was sustained by 4/114 (4%) of helmet wearers compared with 100/928 (11%) of non-wearers (P = 0.023). Significantly more children wore helmets (50/309 (16%)) than did adults (64/731 (9%)) (P < 0.001). The incidence of head injuries sustained in accidents involving motor vehicles (52/288 (18%)) was significantly higher than in those not involving motor vehicles (52/754 (7%)) (chi 2 = 28.9, P < 0.0001). Multiple logistic regression analysis of probability of sustaining a head injury showed that only two variables were significant: helmet use and involvement of a motor vehicle. Mutually adjusted odds ratios showed a risk factor of 2.95 (95% confidence interval 1.95 to 4.47, P < 0.0001) for accidents involving a motor vehicle and a protective factor of 3.25 (1.17 to 9.06, P = 0.024) for wearing a helmet.
                The findings suggest an increased risk of sustaining head injury in a bicycle accident when a motor vehicle is involved and confirm protective effect of helmet wearing for any bicycle accident. Head injury is the leading cause of death and serious morbidity in bicycle accidents. There is good evidence to recommend helmets, yet few children wear them. We evaluated helmet promotion in a randomized trial targeting children presenting to primary care settings for routine ambulatory care. The intervention consisted of physician counseling and take-home pamphlets. The study involved 339 families, 167 in the intervention group and 172 in the control group. In a follow-up telephone call, 2 to 3 weeks later, only 7.2% of the intervention group had purchased helmets, compared with 7.0% of the control group (chi 2 = 0.0056, P = .94). During the latter half of the study, bicycle safety received considerable media attention in Ottawa, and the provincial medical society sponsored a $5 discount campaign. Therefore both groups were subject to community "co-intervention." Nonetheless, we were surprised that physician counseling made no additional impact. Our results and the success of certain community programs suggest that physicians interested in helmet promotion would do better to participate in the design and implementation of multidisciplinary campaigns. A comprehensive study was conducted of all motorcycle traffic crashes occurring in Maryland during a one-year period. All available medical and cost data were linked with police crash reports. During the study period, 1,900 motorcycle drivers were involved in crashes. The data indicated that (i) helmet usage was 35% overall, 30% among fatally injured drivers, and only 16% among drivers with a history of drug/alcohol conviction, (ii) unhelmeted drivers seen at an emergency department were almost twice as likely to have sustained head injury (40%) as were helmeted drivers (21%) (the corresponding percentages for hospitalized drivers were 55% and 38%), and (iii) acute care cost for unhelmeted drivers was three times ($30,365) that of helmeted drivers. It has been established that seat belt use by car occupants and helmet use by motorcycle riders substantially reduces the risk of serious and fatal injuries following accidents. No study, however, has evaluated the motor vehicle deaths that could be prevented in Greece by general use of these devices, even though this country has the highest mortality from motor vehicle accidents in the European Union. We have estimated the odds ratios (OR) for death rather than injury in a motor vehicle accident by seat belt use among occupants of passenger cars or helmet use among motorcycle riders, using a nationwide database in which persons killed or injured in road traffic accidents in 1985 and 1994 were recorded. The study base included 910 dead and 19,511 injured persons for 1985 and 1203 dead and 22,186 injured persons for 1994. The OR and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for death rather than injury was 0.69 (CI: 0.58 to 0.81, p < 10(-5)) for seat belt users versus non-users and 0.64 (CI: 0.51 to 0.81; p < 10(-3)) for helmet users versus non-users. There was evidence that the protective effect of these passive safety devices increased from 1985 to 1994 probably reflecting technological improvements. The proportion of all deaths that could have been avoided if all car occupants used seat belts was estimated to 27%, whereas 38% of motorcycle deaths could have been avoided if all motorcycle riders used helmets. These proportions translate to about 500 deaths per year, mostly deaths among young men. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effect of California's bicycle helmet law on bicycle-related head injuries in San Diego County with a year 2000 population of approximately 3 million people. The study design is an ecological trend design based on observational data from a Trauma Registry. Outcome measures include helmet use compliance, site/severity of injury and abbreviated injury scale (AIS). There were 1116 bicycle trauma patients recorded in the San Diego County Trauma Registry between 1992 and 1996. The percentages of pre-law and post-law helmet use were 13.2 and 31.7%, respectively. Over the whole study period, the overall helmet use increased by an average of 43% per year with an averaged 84% rate increase in helmet use among children. Only 16.1% of patients with serious head injury used helmets, compared to 28.2% in those who did not have serious head injury. The odds ratio of helmet use against serious head injuries is 0.43 (95% CI 0.28-0.66) after adjusting for age, ethnicity and time. The p-values for comparing pre- and post-legislation serious head injury rates are p=0.764, 0.4 and 0.194 for the overall, adult and child populations, respectively. Helmet legislation increased helmet use in the targeted child population and the effect was carried over to the adult population. Helmet use has a protective effect against serious head injury. Probably due to several of its limitations, the current study did not confirm that helmet legislation alone significantly reduced head injury rates in San Diego County during the study period. During the 1980s, a sustained campaign increased the rates of helmet use of Victorian bicyclists. The efficacy of helmet use was evaluated by comparison of crashes and injuries (AIS-1985) in 366 helmeted (261 Australian Standard approved and 105 non-approved) and 1344 unhelmeted casualties treated from 1987 through 1989 at Melbourne and Geelong hospitals or dying before hospitalization. Head injury (HI) occurred in 21.1% of wearers of approved helmets and in 34.8% of non-wearers (p < 0.001). The AIS scores were decreased for wearers of approved helmets (p < 0.001), face injuries were reduced (p < 0.01), and extremity/pelvic girdle injuries increased (p < 0.001) and the overall risk of HI was reduced by at least 39% and face injury by 28%. When casualties with dislodged helmets were excluded, HI was reduced 45% by approved helmets. Head injury reduction by helmets, although substantial, was less than that found in a similar study in Seattle, Washington. The design of motor cycle helmets has been changing over the years and at the present time there are two basic types in popular use: "full-face" and "jet" helmets. Both helmet types give good protection to the brain, but, one would think, different degrees of facial protection. A special study of traffic crashes has indicated that full-face helmets provide significantly greater protection against facial injury than do jet helmets. The study also indicated that the wearers of full-face helmets have no greater risk of involvement in road traffic crashes than do the wearers of jet helemts. It is suggested that the use of full-face helmets should be encouraged and consideration given to the revision of helmet standards to require the provision of facial protection. The purpose of this study was to identify the impact of motorcycle helmet use on patient outcomes and cost of hospitalization, in a state with a mandatory helmet law.
                Patients admitted after motorcycle crashes from July 1996 to October 2000 were reviewed, including demographics, Injury Severity Score, length of stay, injuries, outcome, helmet use, hospital cost data, and insurance information. Statistical analysis was performed comparing helmeted to unhelmeted patients using analysis of variance, Student's test, and regression analysis.
                We admitted 216 patients: 174 wore helmets and 42 did not. Injury Severity Score correlated with both length of stay and cost of hospitalization. Mortality was not significantly different in either group. Failure to wear a helmet significantly increased incidence of head injuries (Student's test, p < 0.02), but not other injuries. Helmet use decreased mean cost of hospitalization by more than $6,000 per patient.
                Failure to wear a helmet adds to the financial burden created by motorcycle-related injuries. Therefore, individuals who do not wear helmets should pay higher insurance premiums. Bicycle-related head injuries are an important cause of death and disability, despite the availability of helmets. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a school-based bicycle helmet promotion program in increasing helmet use by children while controlling for secular trends. Two high-income and two low-income schools in an urban Canadian community were selected to receive a bicycle helmet promotion intervention, with the remaining 18 schools serving as controls. Approximately 1800 observations of bicycling children were made at randomly selected observational sites 2 to 5 months after the intervention to assess changes in behavior. Helmet use at all observation sites tripled from 3.4% (1990, preintervention) to 16% (1991, postintervention). In the high-income intervention area, observed helmet use rose dramatically from 4% to 36% in contrast to the more modest increase in the high-income control area from 4% to 15%. In the low-income intervention area, there was a modest increase from 1% to 7%, but it did not differ from the increase in the low-income control area from 3% to 13%. The program was highly successful in children of high-income families but not in children of low-income families. Developing strategies for low-income families remains a priority. Helmet laws remain controversial. Opponents believe negative findings are a result of biased statistical analyses that fail to account for the impact of alcohol and drugs. In this study, we evaluated the effect that helmet use had upon injury severity, outcome controlling for alcohol or drug use, resource utilization, and financial burden using the National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB).
                Two groups of patients, helmeted and non-helmeted motorcyclists, were identified using the NTDB over an 8-year period. Group differences were compared using nonparametric Wilcoxon tests for continuous variables and Fisher's exact test for dichotomous outcomes. To evaluate the effect that alcohol or drug use had on mortality, logistic regression models were created.
                A total of 9,769 patients were identified by the NTDB of which 6756 (69.2%) were helmeted and 3013 (30.8%) were non-helmeted. Helmet use was associated with lower injury severity, mortality, and resource utilization. Non-helmeted motorcyclists accrued greater hospital charges and were significantly less likely to have health insurance. When controlling for alcohol or drug use, mortality continued to be significantly associated with non-helmet use.
                Non-helmeted motorcyclists have worse outcomes than their helmeted counterparts independent of the use of alcohol or drugs. Furthermore, they monopolize more hospital resources, incur higher hospital charges, and as non-helmeted motorcyclists frequently do not have insurance, reimbursement in this group of patients is poor. Thus, the burden of caring for these patients is transmitted to society as a whole.
Motorcycle helmets reduce the risk of death and head injury in motorcycle riders who crash. Further well-conducted research is required to determine the effects of helmets and different helmet types on mortality, head, neck and facial injuries. However, the findings suggest that global efforts to reduce road traffic injuries may be facilitated by increasing helmet use by motorcyclists.