↓ Skip to main content

Severe soft tissue injuries of the upper extremity in motor vehicle crashes involving partial ejection: the protective role of side curtain airbags

Overview of attention for article published in Accident Analysis & Prevention, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Severe soft tissue injuries of the upper extremity in motor vehicle crashes involving partial ejection: the protective role of side curtain airbags
Published in
Accident Analysis & Prevention, March 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.aap.2017.02.027
Pubmed ID
Authors

Robert Kaufman, Laura Fraade-Blanar, Angelo Lipira, Jeffrey Friedrich, Eileen Bulger

Abstract

Partial ejection (PE) of the upper extremity (UE) can occur in a motor vehicle crash (MVC) resulting in complex and severe soft tissue injuries (SSTI). This study evaluated the relationship between partial ejection and UE injuries, notably SSTIs, in MVCs focusing on crash types and characteristics, and further examined the role of side curtain airbags (SCABs) in the prevention of partial ejection and reducing SSTI of the UE. Weighted data was analyzed from the National Automotive Sampling System Crashworthiness Data System (NASS-CDS) from 1993 to 2012. Logistic regression models were used to assess the relationship of PE with SSTI of the UE and the effect of SCABs in both nearside impacts and rollover collisions. Crash Injury Research and Engineering Network (CIREN) case studies illustrated PE involving SSTI of the UE, and long term treatment. Rollover and nearside impact collisions had the highest percentages of partial ejection, with over half occurring in rollover collisions. Annually over 800 SSTIs of the UE occurred in all MVCs. For nearside lateral force impacts, a multivariable analysis adjusting for belt use and delta V showed a 15 times (OR 15.35, 95% CI 4.30, 54.79) greater odds of PE for occupants without SCABs compared to those with a SCAB deployment. No occupants (0 of 51,000) sustained a SSTI of the UE when a SCAB deployed in nearside impacts, compared to 0.01% (114 of 430,000) when SCABs were unavailable or did not deploy. In rollover collisions, a multivariable analysis adjusted for number of quarter turns and belt use showed 3 times the odds (OR 3.02, 95% CI 1.22, 7.47) of PE for occupants without SCABs compared to those with a SCAB deployment. Just 0.17% (32 of 19,000) of the occupants sustained a SSTI of the UE in rollovers with a SCAB deployment, compared to 0.53% (2294 of 431,000) of the occupants when SCABs were unavailable or did not deploy. CIREN case studies illustrated the injury causation of SSTI of the UE due to partial ejection, and the long term treatment and medical costs associated with a SSTI to the UE. The majority of severe soft tissue injuries (SSTI) of the upper extremity (UE) involved partial ejection out the nearside window of outboard seated occupants in nearside impacts and rollover collisions. Real world case studies showed that SSTIs of the upper extremity require extensive treatment, extended hospitalization and are costly. Occupants without a side curtain airbag (SCAB) deployment had an increase in the odds of partial ejection. SCAB deployments provided protection against partial ejection and prevented SSTIs of the UE, with none occurring in nearside impacts, and a small percentage and reduction occurring in rollover collisions compared to those where SCABs were unavailable or did not deploy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 34 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 21%
Other 4 12%
Researcher 4 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 9%
Student > Master 3 9%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 10 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 10 29%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 15%
Social Sciences 2 6%
Materials Science 2 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 12 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 August 2017.
All research outputs
#3,711,488
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Accident Analysis & Prevention
#707
of 4,178 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,006
of 322,922 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Accident Analysis & Prevention
#9
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,178 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 322,922 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.