rss
Inj Prev 15:328-333 doi:10.1136/ip.2009.021691
  • Methodologic issues

The effect of counting principal and secondary injuries on national estimates of motor vehicle-related trauma: a NEISS–AIP special study

  1. J Halpin1,
  2. A I Greenspan1,
  3. T Haileyesus2,
  4. J L Annest2
  1. 1
    Division of Unintentional Injury Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
  2. 2
    Office of Statistics and Programming, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr J Halpin, Division of Unintentional Injury Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Highway, NE, Mailstop F62, Atlanta, GA 30341, USA; jhalpin{at}cdc.gov
  • Accepted 18 June 2009

Abstract

Objective: To demonstrate the effect of including both principal and secondary injuries in the calculation of national estimates of non-fatal motor vehicle-related injury, using the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System–All Injury Program (NEISS–AIP).

Methods: The setting was a stratified sample of 15 US hospital emergency departments selected among 50 NEISS–AIP hospitals which agreed to participate in the study. Non-fatal injury data from a special study of the 2004 NEISS–AIP were analysed which allowed up to five injuries to be coded per case. National estimates of number and rate of injuries for 2004 were calculated, first using principal injuries alone, then by including principal and secondary injuries.

Results: An estimated 4 833 626 principal and secondary injuries were sustained by the estimated 2 893 782 motor vehicle occupants involved in a crash and treated in US hospital emergency departments (EDs) in 2004. This represents a 67% increase in the total number of injuries compared with an estimate of principal injury alone. Incidence of contusions/abrasions and lower trunk injuries rose most steeply among broad injury types, and whiplash injury rose 18% in number and rate. A significantly lower percentage of cases with a single listed injury were hospitalised (5%) compared with those who sustained multiple injuries (8%).

Conclusions: Based on an analysis of NEISS–AIP special study data, the inclusion of both principal and secondary injuries in national estimates of motor vehicle-related occupant injury would provide a more comprehensive report of non-fatal injuries treated in US hospital EDs. Other countries with ED-based surveillance systems could consider reporting multiple injuries when assessing injury count associated with motor vehicle trauma requiring ED care.

Footnotes

  • Funding This study was partially funded by the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

  • Competing interests None.

  • Ethics approval This study was approved by CDC’s Institutional Review Board.

  • Contributorship: Conception: Dr Ann Dellinger, AG. Planning and design: AG, LA, JH. Data analysis: TH, JH. Data interpretation: JH, AG, LA, TH. Manuscript drafting: JH. Manuscript editing: AG, LA, TH. Guarantors: LA, AG.

    Disclaimer: The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

  • Provenance and Peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Free sample
This recent issue is free to all users to allow everyone the opportunity to see the full scope and typical content of Injury Prevention.
View free sample issue >>

Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.

Navigate This Article