• Author: Houwing, Sjoerd

    SWOV, Institute for Road Safety Research, Netherlands

  • Author: Hagenzieker, Marjan

    SWOV, Institute for Road Safety Research, Netherlands

  • Author: Mathijssen, René P.M.

    SWOV, Institute for Road Safety Research, Netherlands

  • Author: Legrand, Sara-Ann

    Ghent University, Belgium

  • Author: Verstraete, Alain G.

    Ghent University, Belgium

  • Author: Hels, Tove

    Traffic modelling and planning, Department of Transport, Technical University of Denmark, Bygningstorvet 116B, 2800, Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark

  • Author: Bernhoft, Inger Marie

    Traffic modelling and planning, Department of Transport, Technical University of Denmark, Bygningstorvet 116B, 2800, Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark

  • Author: Simonsen, Kirsten Wiese

    University of Copenhagen2, Denmark

  • Author: Lillsunde, Pirjo

    Alcohol and Drug Analytics Unit, National Institute for Health and Welfare, Finland

  • Author: Favretto, Donata

    Università degli Studi di Padova, Italy

  • Author: Ferrara, Santo D.

    Università degli Studi di Padova, Italy

  • Author: Caplinskiene, Marija

    VTMT – State Forensic Medicine Service under the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania, Lithuania

  • Author: Movig, Kris L.L.

    Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Medisch Spectrum Twente, Netherlands

  • Author: Brookhuis, Karel A.

    University of Groningen, Netherlands

View graph of relations

Between 2006 and 2010, six population based case-control studies were conducted as part of the European research-project DRUID (DRiving Under the Influence of Drugs, alcohol and medicines). The aim of these case-control studies was to calculate odds ratios indicating the relative risk of serious injury in car crashes. The calculated odds ratios in these studies showed large variations, despite the use of uniform guidelines for the study designs. The main objective of the present article is to provide insight into the presence of random and systematic errors in the six DRUID case-control studies. Relevant information was gathered from the DRUID-reports for eleven indicators for errors. The results showed that differences between the odds ratios in the DRUID case-control studies may indeed be (partially) explained by random and systematic errors. Selection bias and errors due to small sample sizes and cell counts were the most frequently observed errors in the six DRUID case-control studies. Therefore, it is recommended that epidemiological studies that assess the risk of psychoactive substances in traffic pay specific attention to avoid these potential sources of random and systematic errors. The list of indicators that was identified in this study is useful both as guidance for systematic reviews and meta-analyses and for future epidemiological studies in the field of driving under the influence to minimize sources of errors already at the start of the study. © 2013 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Original languageEnglish
JournalAccident Analysis & Prevention
Publication date2013
Volume52
Pages144-153
Number of pages18
ISSN0001-4575
DOIs
StatePublished
CitationsWeb of Science® Times Cited: 3

Keywords

  • Accidents, Alcohols, Errors, Systematic errors
Download as:
Download as PDF
Select render style:
APAAuthorCBEHarvardMLAStandardVancouverShortLong
PDF
Download as HTML
Select render style:
APAAuthorCBEHarvardMLAStandardVancouverShortLong
HTML
Download as Word
Select render style:
APAAuthorCBEHarvardMLAStandardVancouverShortLong
Word

ID: 10084687