Rear-facing versus forward-facing child restraints: an updated assessment

dc.contributor.authorMcMurry, Timothy L.
dc.contributor.authorArbogast, Kristy B.
dc.contributor.authorSherwood, Christopher P.
dc.contributor.authorVaca, Federico
dc.contributor.authorBull, Marilyn
dc.contributor.authorCrandall, Jeff R.
dc.contributor.authorKent, Richard W.
dc.contributor.departmentPediatrics, School of Medicineen_US
dc.date.accessioned2019-02-27T20:37:02Z
dc.date.available2019-02-27T20:37:02Z
dc.date.issued2018
dc.description.abstractObjectives The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the American Academy of Pediatrics recommend children be placed in rear-facing child restraint systems (RFCRS) until at least age 2. These recommendations are based on laboratory biomechanical tests and field data analyses. Due to concerns raised by an independent researcher, we re-evaluated the field evidence in favour of RFCRS using the National Automotive Sampling System Crashworthiness Data System (NASS-CDS) database. Methods Children aged 0 or 1 year old (0–23 months) riding in either rear-facing or forward-facing child restraint systems (FFCRS) were selected from the NASS-CDS database, and injury rates were compared by seat orientation using survey-weighted χ2 tests. In order to compare with previous work, we analysed NASS-CDS years 1988–2003, and then updated the analyses to include all available data using NASS-CDS years 1988–2015. Results Years 1988–2015 of NASS-CDS contained 1107 children aged 0 or 1 year old meeting inclusion criteria, with 47 of these children sustaining injuries with Injury Severity Score of at least 9. Both 0-year-old and 1-year-old children in RFCRS had lower rates of injury than children in FFCRS, but the available sample size was too small for reasonable statistical power or to allow meaningful regression controlling for covariates. Conclusions Non-US field data and laboratory tests support the recommendation that children be kept in RFCRS for as long as possible, but the US NASS-CDS field data are too limited to serve as a strong statistical basis for these recommendations.en_US
dc.eprint.versionFinal published versionen_US
dc.identifier.citationMcMurry, T. L., Arbogast, K. B., Sherwood, C. P., Vaca, F., Bull, M., Crandall, J. R., & Kent, R. W. (2018). Rear-facing versus forward-facing child restraints: an updated assessment. Injury Prevention, 24(1), 55–59. https://doi.org/10.1136/injuryprev-2017-042512en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1805/18503
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherBMJen_US
dc.relation.isversionof10.1136/injuryprev-2017-042512en_US
dc.relation.journalInjury Preventionen_US
dc.rightsPublisher Policyen_US
dc.sourcePublisheren_US
dc.subjectchild restraintsen_US
dc.subjectrear-facingen_US
dc.subjectforward-facingen_US
dc.titleRear-facing versus forward-facing child restraints: an updated assessmenten_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
McMurry_2018_rear.pdf
Size:
168.39 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.99 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description: