NHTSA - People Saving PeopleAn Evaluation of Severity And Outcome Of Injury By Type Of Object Struck (First Object Struck Only) for Motor Vehicle Crashes in Connecticut

Table Of Contents

list of Tables

List of Figures

List Of Abbreviations

Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Data Sources
Motor Vehicle Crash (MVC) Data

Hospital Claim Data

Mortality Data

Linking /Merging Process
Studies and Phases
Outcome and Independent Variables
Outcome Variables

Independent Variables

Statistical Analysis

Results

Linking and Merging
CHIME® Database

CTMDS File

Overall Motor Vehicle Crashes in Connecticut
Phase One
Study Sample

Results

Phase Two
Study Sample

Results

Discussion

Summary

Recommendations

Appendix A

Crashes, Injuries, And Objects Struck, By Town or City

Appendix B

Bivariate Analysis of Having Struck an Object

References







list of Tables
Table of Content

Table 1. Summary Of 1995 Collision Analysis Input Files

Table 2. DOT MVC File Crash Records, by Category

Table 3. CHIME® Database Records, by Motor Vehicle E-Code Category

Table 4. CT Mortality Database MVC Records, by Location of Crash and Location of Residency

Table 5. Merge Algorithm for DOT and CHIME® Database

Table 6. Linkage Rates (CHIME® and DOT)

Table 7. Mean Age and Mortality by Position in Motor Vehicle and Place of Death

Table 8. Percentage of First Object Struck, by Type of Object

Table 9. Characteristics Associated With First Object Struck

Table 10. Mean LOS and Total Charges by Object Struck

Table 11. Crashes, Injuries and Objects Struck, By Town or City

Table 12. Bivariate Analysis of Characteristics Associated with Having Any Type of Object Listed as First Struck







List of Figures
Table of Content

Figure 1. Linkage Rate, by Linkage Level and Crash Severity

Figure 2. Percentage of Crashes in Connecticut, 1995, by Town or City

Figure 3. Rate of Injury for CT Motor Vehicle Crashes, by Town or City

Figure 4. Mortality by Position in Motor Vehicle and Place of Death

Figure 5. Mean Age of Fatalities by Place of Death

Figure 6. Fatality Rate of Motor Vehicle Crashes by Town or City

Figure 7. Percentage of Total Mortality by Town or City

Figure 8. Rate of Having an Object Listed as First Object Struck, by Town/City

Figure 9. Mean Total Charges and Length of Stay by Object Struck

Figure 10. Total Mortality by Object Struck







List Of Abbreviations
Table of Content

AISAbbreviated Injury Score
CAAI Collision Analysis Auxiliary Input Files
CHAConnecticut Hospital Association
CHIME® Connecticut Health Information and Management Exchange
CHREFConnecticut Healthcare Research and Education Foundation, Inc.
CTMDSConnecticut State Mortality Data Set
DOTDepartment of Transportation
EDEmergency Department
ICD-9-CMInternational Classification of Disease, 9th Edition Clinical Modification
ICFIntensive Care Facility
LOSLength of Stay
MVCMotor Vehicle Crash
SNFSkilled Nursing Facility







Abstract
Table of Content

A deterministic algorithm was developed which allowed data from Department of Transportation motor vehicle crash records, state mortality registry records, and hospital admission and emergency department records to be linked for analysis of the types of objects struck in motor vehicle crashes in Connecticut in 1995, and their consequences. Only objects listed on the police report as ‘first object struck' were analyzed. Of 132,918 vehicular crash records, 14.4% were thus identified as having struck an object; similarly, fourteen percent of the crashes which resulted in treatment in the ED or hospital admission visits were thus identified as having struck an object. Mean total hospital charges for these visits were $3,021; the mean length of stay for those visits resulting in an admission was slightly less than 5 days. Logistic regression analysis identified the most frequently reported factor correlated with striking an object to be driver illness (identified by the traffic safety officer), followed by dark conditions and speeding. Deer were the first object struck almost 5% of the time, resulting in 1.7% of the hospital visits. The highest mean total charges were for crashes involving a wall as first object struck, $5,986, while the first object struck resulting in the highest frequency of hospital visits were metal beam guide rails, in 13% of the cases (with mean total charges of $3,326). Wire rope guide rails and Jersey barriers resulted in lesser utilization of hospital services, while metal beam guide rails, vehicles off road, and trees resulted in greater medical utilization. Similarly, the largest number of fatalities resulted from crashes involving metal beam guide rails and trees as first objects struck.

 





Introduction
Table of Content

This report examines motor vehicle crashes occurring in Connecticut during 1995, using several linked data sets. The findings reported herein illustrate the usefulness of using linked data sets to perform these types of analyses. Alone, each data set could not provide the type and depth of information provided by the group of linked data sets.

Data sets used for the studies include:

The CHIMEÒ dataset identifies all people involved in a MVC (motor vehicle crash) who had inpatient, emergency, or ambulatory surgery treatment at a Connecticut facility regardless of the state in which the MVC occurred. The DOT dataset identifies all MVCs and people involved in a crash, regardless of whether or not they had treatment at a hospital. The mortality dataset identifies deaths from MVCs. It includes all deaths from MVCs in Connecticut, whether the fatality was a resident of Connecticut or not, in addition to deaths of Connecticut residents who died in MVCs outside Connecticut which were reported by the state where they died.

Linking these data sets allows in-depth analysis of severity and outcome of injury by type of object struck. For instance, for the evaluation of severity and outcome of injury by type of object struck, the type-of-object-struck variable is contained in the Department of Transportation data set. Linking the CHIME® and DOT databases contributes diagnoses and procedures resulting from the crash as well as total hospital and Emergency Department charges, while linking the mortality database furnishes information regarding the eventual survival or mortality of the persons involved. Thus the full picture of the effects of crashes with any particular object may be observed.

What follows are a description of the linking, a statistical analysis of the data, and a summary of our findings.

This study was funded in part by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration as part of the CODES demonstration project, and performed in collaboration by the Connecticut Healthcare Research and Education Foundation (CHREF, a non-profit affiliate of the Connecticut Hospital Association), the State of Connecticut Department of Transportation (DOT), and Hartford Hospital.






Methods
Table of Content

Data Sources

Motor Vehicle Crash (MVC) Data

The MVC data were obtained from the 1995 Collision Analysis Auxiliary Input (CAAI) Files. This is a database of motor vehicle crash data, owned by the State of Connecticut Department of Transportation.

There are six different record formats in the DOT files, described as follows:

Record Types 1, 2 and 4 were used for this analysis. Record Type 1 contains information pertinent to the crash as a whole, such as date and time, location and other crash-specific information. Record Type 2 identifies each vehicle or pedestrian involved in a crash, defined as a vehicle involved in a crash or a pedestrian who was struck by a vehicle involved in a crash. Record Type 4 contains information about vehicle operators, struck pedestrians, passengers, and witnesses. If more than four persons were involved in a crash, more than one person-record was created. Table 1 summarizes the number of records in these files.

Table 1. Summary Of 1995 Collision Analysis Input Files

File Type

Number of Records

Type 1: Crash Summary Records

72,677

Type 2: Traffic Unit Information Records

136,165

Type 4: Included Person Records (1 - 4 persons each)

79,931

The working MVC data file was constructed based on Type 1, 2 and 4 records in the DOT file. Type 1 records were merged with Type 2 records, to produce a file of one record per vehicle or pedestrian involved in a crash. The Type 4 records were converted from one record for each 1 to 4 involved persons into one record per involved person (i.e., if there were 4 people involved in a crash, the original file had one Type 4 record but the converted file has 4 records), then merged with the file of involved vehicles and pedestrians. This process produced one record for each involved person, containing all the data describing that person, as well as the specific crash and the specific vehicle. Table 2 categorizes the records contained in the DOT file.

Table 2. DOT MVC File Crash Records, by Category

 

Number

Percent of Total

Drivers

132,918

72.5%

Passengers

48,919

26.7%

Pedestrians

1,518

0.8%

Witnesses

3

0.0%

Total

 

100.0%

Hospital Claim Data

The CHIME® database was used for this analysis. Included in the CHIME® database is demographic, clinical and financial information about each patient visit occurring in Connecticut acute care hospitals.

Data were extracted from this database in a two step process. In the first step, an index file containing information about Connecticut hospital ED visits, ambulatory surgery visits, and inpatient stays during 1995 was created for all patients having an ICD-9-CM code ranging from E810 to E819 (motor vehicle traffic crash E-codes), as detailed in Table 3.

Table 3. CHIME® Database Records, by Motor Vehicle E-Code Category

E-Code Category

Number

Percent of Total

Motor Vehicle, Driver

23,219

56.79%

Motor Vehicle, Passenger

11,659

28.52%

Motorcyclist

1,191

2.91%

Other, Unspecified

2,430

5.94%

Pedalcyclist

697

1.70%

Pedestrian

1,687

4.13%

Total

 

100%

In the second step, a medical history file containing the previous year's hospital visit information for those patients having an MVC in the index year was created. There were 40,883 records in the index CHIME® database and 12,280 records in the history CHIME® database.

Mortality Data

Mortality data for victims of motor vehicle crashes were derived from the State of Connecticut Mortality Database (CTMDS). This database is offered to individuals and institutions from the State of Connecticut Department of Public Health, Office of Planning & Evaluation, Vital Records Bureau, and offers a comprehensive view of primary causes of mortality in Connecticut.

There were a total of 390 records selected from the state of Connecticut 1995 mortality database as possessing a motor vehicle crash related cause of death. Table 4 details these records by location of residency and location of crash.

Table 4. CT Mortality Database MVC Records, by Location of Crash and Location of Residency

Residency

Location of MVC

Number

Percent of Total

Connecticut

Connecticut

321

82%

Connecticut

Out of State

51

13%

Out of State

Connecticut

18

5%

Total

Total

390

100%

 

Linking /Merging Process

A proprietary deterministic matching algorithm was developed in the FOCUS language to merge these databases. Key variables used to link the crash and hospital data were date of crash, date of birth, date of ED visit, date of inpatient admission(s), date of death, gender, and towncode of crash. Because passenger DOT records do not specify a gender, three steps of merging were employed. The first step included only driver and pedestrian records, with gender identified in the DOT database. The second step included passenger records from the DOT database, for which gender cannot be used as a linking variable. The third step included all unmatched records from the first and second steps. This algorithm did not allow for fuzzy or probabilistic linking; however, since crash date and ED or inpatient admission date would not always be expected to match exactly, four levels of date window were allowed within each matching step.

One hundred percent complete linkage is not expected when linking the DOT crash database to the CHIME® database; for instance, if a motor vehicle crash occurred outside the state of Connecticut and the victim was taken to a Connecticut emergency room, or admitted to a Connecticut hospital, the patient would be included in the CHIME® database but not the DOT database. Conversely, anyone who had a crash occurring in the state of Connecticut and was admitted to a hospital or ED outside of Connecticut would be included in the DOT database but not in the CHIME® database. The result of this slight disjunction between the underlying pools of subjects is that the maximum linkage rate attainable will be reduced below 100% by an unknown amount, since we do not have a count of persons involved in either out of state crashes, or out of state hospital visits.

The mortality registry contains some records of Connecticut residents who die in other states, dependent on the other state's reporting them. Therefore, similarly to the above, Connecticut residents who die out of state in a crash might appear in the mortality database, but not in the DOT or CHIME® databases. Conversely, a person injured in a crash in Connecticut and admitted to a Connecticut hospital, but who eventually dies out of state, might appear in the DOT and CHIME® databases, but not in the mortality registry. Again, this would reduce the maximum attainable rate of linkage to the mortality registry, by an amount that we are not able to predict.

Table 5 describes the matching steps and levels in the merging algorithm. The output linked-dataset was inspected to verify the quality of the match.

Table 5. Merge Algorithm for DOT and CHIME® Database

Level

Matching Strategy

 

First Step: Merge Driver Or Pedestrian Records Which Include Gender

1

Matching variables: birth date, gender, town code
date adjustment window of 0 days (date of hospital visit equal to date of crash).

2

Matching variables: birth date, gender, town code
date adjustment window of +7 days (date of hospital visit within 7 days after date of crash).

3

Matching variables: birth date, gender, town code
date adjustment window of +30 days (date of hospital visit within 30 days after date of crash).

4

Matching variables: birth date, gender, town code
date adjustment window of +30/-1 days (date of hospital visit within 30 days after or 1 day before date of crash).

 

Second Step: Merge Passenger Records Which Do Not Include Gender

5

Matching variables: birth date, town code
date adjustment window of 0 days (date of hospital visit equal to date of crash).

6

Matching variables: birth date, town code
date adjustment window of +7 days (date of hospital visit within 7 days after date of crash).

7

Matching variables: birth date, town code
date adjustment window of +30 days (date of hospital visit within 30 days after date of crash).

8

Matching variables: birth date, town code
date adjustment window of +30/-1 days (date of hospital visit within 30 days after or 1 day before date of crash).

 

Third Step: Merge Records With Gender Unknown Or Missing

9

Matching variables: birth date, town code
date adjustment window of 0 days (date of hospital visit equal to date of crash).

10

Matching variables: birth date, town code
date adjustment window of +7 days (date of hospital visit within 7 days after date of crash).

11

Matching variables: birth date, town code
date adjustment window of +30 days (date of hospital visit within 30 days after date of crash).

12

Matching variables: birth date, town code
date adjustment window of +30/-1 days (date of hospital visit within 30 days after or 1 day before date of crash).

 

Studies and Phases

This study was divided into two phases. The first phase analyzed all eligible DOT records to determine the distribution of the variables under examination and identify significant predictors of these variables and their odds ratios. The second phase was restricted to cases that successfully linked or merged, with a primary goal of determining the clinical events after MVCs.

Outcome and Independent Variables

Outcome Variables

The outcome variable for the first phase was the frequency of object struck, evaluating only the first object struck. The outcome variables for the second phase of the study included mortality, total charges, and length of stay.

Total hospital charge was calculated on an unadjusted basis only, due to lack of cost/charge ratio information. Mortality was categorized as died at the crash site, Emergency Department death (died in hospital with zero length of stay), died as inpatient (died in hospital with length of stay equal to or greater than 1 day), and died after discharge.

Independent Variables

Independent variables in this study were drawn from two sources, the DOT data file and the CHIME® database. Those variables included demographic, geographic, subjective, and objective factors, road and weather/season condition, police judgment/investigation, and clinical variables. Demographic variables included gender (female or male). Geographic variables included location of the crash and location of the object struck. Subjective factors included were speeding, following too closely, violating traffic controls, unsafe use of highway by pedestrian, etc. Objective factors included driver illness, vehicle involved in emergency, etc. Road condition included construction and road surface. Weather/seasonal variables included snow and rain. Police judgment/investigation included whether or not the driver had been drinking, and lighting conditions. Clinical variables included having at least one MVC and a hospital visit and admission diagnosis codes within past one year or 6 months. Other variables included type of motor vehicle, collision type, and injury classification. All categorical variables were converted into binary variables, as required for the analysis.

Statistical Analysis

For the first phase of the study, the frequency for each outcome in the studied cohort was determined. The bivariate associations with outcome of road condition, weather/season condition, police judgment/investigation, demographic, geographic, subjective, objective, and clinical variables were evaluated, then a stepwise logistic regression model with a group of independent variables was developed, to find the significant predictors. Candidate independent variables were selected from the variables identified in the bivariate analysis as having an association with p < 0.10.

All stepwise models were constructed with an entry significance level of 0.01 and an exit significance level of 0.05, chosen to identify a parsimonious set of independent variables in the models. Partial residual plots were used to evaluate potential problematic areas of fit. Goodness-of-fit was evaluated by comparing fitted probabilities with observed value of dependent variables within deciles of probability, and calculating the corresponding observed chi-square statistic. In addition, an area under the receiver operator curve for logistic models was calculated to evaluate the models' predictive power.

An adjusted odds ratio was derived in which each odds ratio was adjusted for all other independent variables listed. An odds ratio less than 1 indicates that a crash event with that characteristic has a lower likelihood of association with the outcome variable than without that characteristic, while an odds ratio higher than 1 indicates that a crash event with that characteristic has a higher likelihood of association with the outcome variable than without that characteristic. For each of the studies, the logistic regression model's odds ratios and 95 percent confidence intervals for predictors were reported. In addition, a chi-square test or non-parametric test was performed for each bivariate analysis.

All calculations were performed using the software systems SASÒ 6.12 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC) and STATAÒ 3.0 (STATA Corporation, College Station, TX).

 







Results
Table of Content

Linking and Merging

CHIME® Database

There were 40,883 records selected from the CHIMEÒ data set as having motor vehicle crash related E-codes, as detailed in Table 3. Of these, 35,832 records (87.6%) were linked and merged. After deleting duplicate records (1,054, 2.9%), 34,778 records remained (85.1%). Of these records, 364 (1%) were excluded from future analysis by reason of unreliable key variables.

Table 6 and Figure 1 show the linkage/merging rate of CHIME® records for each of the linkage levels described in Table 5, classified by crash severity index in the Type 1 record of the DOT file. Since gender is such a useful linking variable, levels 1 through 4 link drivers and pedestrians only; levels 5 through 12 link passengers (who do not have gender recorded by the DOT) and individuals with gender unrecorded by reason of incomplete or defective records.

Table 6. Linkage Rates (CHIME® and DOT)

Level

Fatality Records Linked as % of CHIME® Records

Injury Records Linked as % of CHIME® Records

Property Damage Records Linked as % of CHIME® Records

Number Linked

Cumulative Total Linked

Cumulative Linkage Rate (%)

1

0.5

38.1

3.4

17,158

17,158

42.0

2

0.2

10.7

0.6

4,726

21,884

53.5

3

0.0

0.4

0.0

144

22,028

53.9

4

0.0

0.4

0.1

202

22,230

54.4

5

0.1

9.0

9.6

7,690

29,920

73.2

6

0.1

3.6

2.8

2,633

32,553

79.6

7

0.0

1.1

1.2

923

33,476

81.9

8 - 12

0.0

1.2

2.0

1,302

34,778

85.1



Figure 1. Linkage Rate, by Linkage Level and Crash Severity



One hundred percent complete linkage is not expected when linking DOT files to all Connecticut hospital and emergency department discharges, since, if a motor vehicle crash occurred outside the state of Connecticut and the victim was hospitalized or admitted to a Connecticut hospital, the patient would be included in the CHIME® database but not the DOT database. Conversely, anyone who had a crash occurring in the state of Connecticut and was admitted to a non-Connecticut hospital or ED would be included in the DOT database but not in the CHIME® database. If both such cases could be eliminated, the final linked and merged rate would be higher than the current 85.1%.

CTMDS File

A total of 329 records (84% of the 390 motor vehicle crash related fatalities) from the Connecticut Mortality dataset were successfully linked and merged with the DOT and CHIME® files.

Overall Motor Vehicle Crashes in Connecticut

Overall, there were a total of 72,639 motor vehicle crashes reported to the DOT in the state of Connecticut during calendar 1995 (38 records of the total 72,677 were excluded due to duplication), involving 136,165 vehicles and pedestrians and 183,358 individual persons (Table 1 and Table 2); of the total persons involved in a crash, 34,778 (19%) were successfully linked to an ED visit or hospitalization (Table 6), and 329 to a mortality entry.



Figure 2. Precentage of Crashes in Connecticut, 1995, by Town or City



Figure 2 shows a geographical view of the percentage of total crashes by town or city, calculated as the number of crashes in the index town or city divided by total crashes in the state. As can be seen, the highest rates occur in towns and cities surrounding Interstate 91 (I-91), Interstate 95 (I-95) between the New York border and New Haven, Route 15, Interstate 84 (I-84), and Interstate 395 (I-395) between I-95 and Route 6.

There are 169 towns or cities recorded in the DOT files, with crash rates ranging from 0.01% to 5.1%. The five lowest towns or cities were Lyme (0.01%), Warren (0.01%), Colebrook (0.02%), Hampton (0.02%), and Hartland (0.02%), while the five highest were New Haven (5.07%), Hartford (5.00%), Bridgeport (4.81%), Stamford (3.20%), and Norwalk (2.93%). Appendix A details the crash rates by town.



Figure 3. Rate of Injury for CT Motor Vehicle Crashes by Town or City



Figure 3 shows the rate of injury by town or city in the state of Connecticut. Presence of injury was determined from the DOT Type 1 record injury severity code, including fatalities or any type of injuries, but excluding property damage only. Rate of injury was determined as number of injuries divided by total crashes in the index town or city.

Overall, the injury rate ranged from 23% to 70%; the five lowest town or cities were Old Lyme (22.89%), Madison (23.71%), Chester (25.00%), Essex (25.25%), and Guilford (27.17%), while the five highest were Sterling (69.57%), Hartford (63.38%), Hampton (62.50%), Windsor Locks (60.81%), and New Haven (59.82%). Appendix A contains detailed data for Figure 3.



Figure 4. Mortality by Position in Motor Vehicle and Place of Death



Figure 4 and Table 7 show mortality by position in vehicle (driver, passenger, or pedestrian) and place of death (at the crash site, emergency department [LOS = 0], inpatient [LOS > 0], or after discharge).



Table 7. Mean Age and Mortality by Position in Motor Vehicle and Place of Death

 

Death at Crash Site

ED Death

Inpatient Death

Death After Discharge

Total

Driver

112

70

40

16

238

Passenger

26

12

5

2

45

Pedestrian

16

17

10

3

46

Total

154

99

55

21

329

Mean age

38.7

41.2

53.8

38.5

42.0



Figure 5. Mean Age of Fatalities by Place of Death

Figure 5 and Table 7 show mean age of fatalities by place of death. Inpatient deaths tended to be older than the other classes of fatalities. There was no significant difference between males and females.




Figure 6. Fatality Rate of Motor Vehicle Crashes by Town or City

Figure 6 shows fatality rate of crashes by town or city, determined as the number of deaths divided by number of crashes in each town or city. The mortality rate ranged from 0 to 10%, the five highest areas being Lyme (10%, 1 killed in 10 crashes), Hampton (6.25%, 1 killed in 16 crashes), Andover (4.76%, 2 killed in 42 crashes), Pomfret (4.23%, 2 killed in 71 crashes), and Canaan (4.12%, 1 killed in 24 crashes).




Figure 7. Percentage of Total Mortality by Town or City

Figure 7 shows mortality by town or city where crash occurred, as a percent of total state mortality. By this measure, Hartford, New Haven, Bridgeport, Waterbury, and Bristol accounted for 29.5% of total state mortality. There were 59 towns or cities where mortality was zero (no one killed by crashes in those areas during 1995).

 

Phase One

Study Sample

For the study of factors influencing crashes involving a non-vehicular object, the study sample consisted of 132,918 vehicle records. Of these, 14.4% (19,153) had an object listed as first object struck, as detailed in Table 8.

Table 8. Percentage of First Object Struck, by Type of Object

Description

%

Metal Beam Guide Rail

15.6

Wire Rope Guide Rail

11.2

Other

9.06

Curbing

8.82

Utility Pole

8.60

Tree

7.50

Jersey Barrier

7.36

Bank, Ledge, Rock (Off Road)

6.02

Deer

4.92

Highway Sign, Post, Delineator

3.60

Foreign Object on Pavement

2.46

Illumination Pole

2.38

Bridge Structure

1.69

Fence

1.66

Wall

1.55

Vehicle Off Road

1.19

Ditch

1.05

Animal Other than Deer

0.85

Traffic Island

0.73

Fire Hydrant

0.67

Traffic Control Device

0.60

Construction Barricade, Barrel

0.58

Building, House

0.54

Impact Attenuator

0.50

Catch Basin, Manhole

0.37

Underpass Ceiling

0.30

Culvert, Endwall

0.25

Railroad Appurtenance, Track

0.12

Overhead Sign Support

0.01


The mean age of drivers identified as having struck an object was 38 years, with standard deviation of 16.2; 37% were female, 59% male, and 3% with gender unrecorded. There was a large variation between towns in the percentage of crashes identified as having struck an object, ranging from 6.2% to 77.5% of total crashes in each town, as shown in Figure 8. Appendix A enumerates the number of cases with objects struck, by town. As might be expected, the higher frequencies of objects struck appear in towns with lower traffic density.




Figure 8. Rate of Having an Object listed as First Object Struck, by Town/City



 

Results

The bivariate analysis of characteristics associated with object struck is detailed in Appendix B; the odds ratios are shown in Table 9.

Table 9. Characteristics Associated With First Object Struck

Characteristics

Lower Confidence Limit

Odds Ratio

Upper Confidence Limit

Contributing factor: driver illness

4.16

5.37

6.92

Vehicle type: automobile

2.48

2.72

2.99

Light condition: dark-not lighted

1.79

2.38

3.17

Vehicle type: truck

1.88

2.10

2.35

Contributing factor: speed too fast

1.93

2.05

2.18

Vehicle type: passenger van

1.64

1.91

2.22

Airbag deployed

1.64

1.82

2.03

Vehicle type: motorcycle

1.38

1.70

2.10

At intersection

1.49

1.64

1.82

Light condition: dawn

1.12

1.55

2.15

Collision type: overturn

0.86

0.92

0.98

Light condition: daylight

0.55

0.73

0.97

Light condition: dusk

0.46

0.64

0.88

Contributing factor: violated traffic control

0.36

0.41

0.48

No indication drinking

0.32

0.36

0.41

Contributing factor: following too closely

0.29

0.34

0.39

Other roadway feature: intersection with private roadway

0.27

0.29

0.31

Collision type: angle

0.23

0.27

0.31

Involved more than 3 vehicles

0.21

0.23

0.26

Other roadway feature: intersection with public roadway

0.18

0.20

0.23

Median barrier: no penetration

0.16

0.19

0.23

Contributing factor: failed to grant right of way

0.11

0.12

0.14

Collision type: turning-intersecting paths

0.11

0.12

0.14

Contributing factor: driving/entered on wrong side of road

0.08

0.09

0.11

Median barrier: no median barrier

0.07

0.09

0.10

Collision type: rear-end

0.04

0.04

0.05

Based on multiple logistic regression with backward stepwise selection


Adjusted odds ratio was derived from a multiple regression analysis in which each odds ratio was adjusted for all other independent variables listed. An odds ratio less than 1 indicates that a crash event with that characteristic has a lower likelihood of being recorded with any first object struck, while an odds ratio higher than 1 indicates that a crash event with that characteristic has a higher likelihood of being recorded with any first object struck.

Driver illness had, by far, the highest correlation with a crash involving an object struck (odds ratio 5.37, 95% confidence interval 4.16 to 6.92), followed by dark conditions (odds ratio 2.38, 95% confidence interval 1.79 to 3.17), and speeding (odds ratio 2.05, 95% confidence interval 1.93 to 2.18).





Phase Two

Study Sample

The study sample was limited to the 34,778 persons in the merged file of DOT records that linked with CHIME® database records, less the 364 (1%) which had unreliable key variables and were excluded from future analysis. The mean age of the 34,414 persons examined was 32 years, with a standard deviation of 15.8; 44% were female and 56% male. Since this study focused on medical and financial consequences of crashes, records from all involved persons were included in the analysis, rather than just drivers. Of these 34,414, 25,184 (73%) were drivers, 8,446 (25%) were passengers, and 783 (2%) were pedestrians.

Results

A total of 4,885 (14.2%) of the study sample of 34,414 persons were identified as having been in a crash involving striking at least one object. Table 10 and Figure 9 detail the mean length of stay and total hospital charge by type of first object struck. For crashes resulting in hospital charges, the mean total hospital charge was $3,021 with standard deviation of $11,122 (white bars on Figure 9, axis at bottom of chart). Among crashes that had hospital charges, there was a wide variation by first object struck in the percentage resulting in inpatient admissions, possibly reflecting the underlying variation in severity of impact. For crashes resulting in inpatient admissions, the mean length of stay by first object struck varied from 1.3 days (4 cases) to 16 days (1 case), with an overall mean of 4.87 days and a standard deviation of 5.86 (black bars on Figure 9, axis at top of chart; 4 or more admissions only). Since many of the frequencies in this table are low, the means shown should not be regarded as definitive. The most frequent first objects struck which resulted in hospital charges were metal beam guide rails, 626 (13%) cases with mean charge $3,326, while the highest mean charge, $5,986, was for crashes involving a wall as first object struck. Figure 10 shows total mortality by first object struck. The first objects struck associated with the highest number of fatalities were metal beam guide rails and trees, followed by curbing, and banks, ledges, and rocks (off road).

Once again, this analysis only delineates the relationship between mortality and the first object struck, while the actual cause of the injury and mortality could be a subsequent object. This study is somewhat biased by the possibility that subsequent objects struck could be responsible for the majority of the injury, and consequently the majority of the hospital charge, length of stay, and mortality; this is likely to be the case for several of these objects, such as curbing, and possibly guide rails and off road banking.




Figure 9. Mean Total Charges and Length of Stay by Object Struck





Table 10. Mean LOS and Total Charges by Object Struck

 

Length of Stay (Days)

Total Charge ($)

Object Struck

Mean Days

STD

Number of Cases

Mean $

STD

Number of Cases

Animal other than Deer

1.25

0.50

4

1166.15

1734.78

20

Bank, Ledge, Rock (Off Rd)

3.79

4.94

43

3190.49

17427.48

336

Bridge Structure

4.67

5.68

12

2111.30

5881.50

89

Building, House

4.50

4.46

6

3162.08

8718.50

35

Catch Basin, Manhole

7.00

1

1932.68

5100.20

19

Const. Barricade, Barrel

2.57

2.07

7

2405.47

4037.09

22

Culvert, Endwall

4.00

2.71

4

3638.76

6846.08

20

Curbing

5.17

6.60

105

3655.01

10882.75

565

Deer

2.75

1.91

8

1359.81

3137.81

81

Ditch

5.50

4.28

6

2493.58

6102.44

48

Fence

3.82

3.06

11

2002.23

4373.37

83

Fire Hydrant

4.20

3.63

5

1785.39

4144.82

44

Foreign Object on Pavement

5.00

3.61

3

1281.89

3427.76

49

Illumination Pole

4.55

4.06

20

2312.95

4380.50

125

Impact Attenuator

3.00

1.67

6

2055.17

3368.33

28

Jersey Barrier

4.04

5.20

46

2057.51

6735.95

388

Metal Beam Guide Rail

5.50

7.13

90

3326.33

16462.94

626

Overhead Sign Support

 

 

0

 

 

0

Railroad Appurtenance, Track

 

 

0

457.90

432.14

3

Traffic Control Device

16.00

 

1

3308.34

12383.32

24

Traffic Island

2.00

1.41

2

968.90

1398.00

20

Tree

6.04

6.14

108

4374.29

12444.18

547

Underpass Ceiling

0

1063.97

1727.25

9

Utility Pole

4.36

5.29

92

2693.31

7964.83

642

Vehicle Off Road

5.43

6.44

14

4407.41

11724.01

59

Wall

5.87

7.81

30

5986.32

18508.98

116

Wire Rope Guiderail

3.86

3.78

43

1973.51

5765.34

408

Other

5.39

6.74

54

3143.57

10284.76

322

Mean

4.87

5.86

745

3020.98

11122.14

4885

Length of stay tabulated only for crashes resulting in inpatient admissions. Total charges include inpatient and ED.



Figure 10. Total Mortality by Object Struck





 

Discussion
Table of Content

Approximately 14% of the motor vehicle crashes and their related hospitalizations studied here involve striking a non-vehicular object. Driver illness, as determined by traffic safety officer at the scene, was strongly associated with crashes involving an object struck, even adjusting for other factors. This finding suggests that drivers should be educated regarding the risks of driving while ill. More detailed study of what kinds of illness and what history of illness are associated with these crashes would be valuable; linkage of the drivers' histories of medication and surgery could identify particular medications which are problematic, or identify general or specific tendencies to release patients for driving too soon after surgery. Other conditions highly correlated with striking a non-vehicular object were darkness, and speeding. Quantifying the costs of speeding, particularly after dark, can justify expending resources on interventions designed to prevent this behavior.

The effects of striking an object varied greatly with the type of object struck. Striking a wire rope guardrail was associated with less severe consequences than striking a metal beam guide rail. Further analysis of the linked data could factor out confounding variables such as differences in average roadway speed, leading to determination of whether there is a general difference in safety between the two types of guard rail, or identifying specific locations which are hazardous. Impact with a tree was also associated with a high degree of severity. Again, using the linked data could determine whether there were any particular locations that were particularly dangerous, or whether this was a general overall risk. Such determinations would allow for informed decisions regarding modifications to existing roadways and design of new ones.

This project demonstrated that the individual data sets (CAAI data, CHIME® database, ED data, and CTMDS data) can be successfully linked together, permitting sophisticated analyses that would otherwise be impossible. The medical database generates useful information on the type and severity of injury to organ systems that have been damaged, as well as the length of stay in the Emergency Department, the Intensive Care Units, and the hospital. The value and utility of the medical database are greatly enhanced by the ability to identify and correlate specific environmental elements, such as road conditions and time of day or night, physical conditions such as type of car and type of object struck, personal conditions such as the use of seat belts or air bags, and specific injuries to the people involved. It is now possible to examine the impact of environmental and physical variables and determine the differences in cost and outcome.

Linked data can make possible substantial progress in the design and safety improvement of motor vehicles and roadways. The relative risks and consequences of the placement and layout of automobile design features and roadway features can be quantified by coupling the data to crash outcomes in terms of personal injury, loss of independence, and cost. Specific injury prevention and public policy recommendations can now derive from carefully performed studies statistically controlled for extraneous environmental and physical factors, using linked data to compare outcomes of different types and severities of crash with reference to mortality, length of stay, ICU stay, rehabilitation, and cost. For instance, the type of evidence presented here regarding the relative risks of differing types of barriers and guardrails can inform the design and decision making process for highway and roadway planners. Similarly, the type and usage of frontal air bags, side air bags, and rear seat restraints, and how these factors interact with various objects struck to affect type of injury, outcome, cost, and rehabilitation, could be very helpful to both legislative bodies and vehicular design and manufacturing interests.







Summary
Table of Content

This data linkage project has demonstrated that large databases from the highway safety domain and the medical domain can be linked successfully. It has shown that mortality, morbidity, cost, and outcome data can be integrated with environmental and physical crash data to yield important information. This information can be helpful in shaping public policy relative to injury prevention.

Crashes with non-vehicular objects make up a considerable fraction of the crash-related morbidity and mortality. Factors influencing the frequency of such crashes, and the types of objects associated with the most severe results, can be identified and action designed to prevent such crashes planned and undertaken. Quantifying the costs associated with these crashes will help allocate the resources required to prevent them.







Recommendations
Table of Content







Appendix A
Table of Content

Crashes, Injuries, And Objects Struck, By Town or City

Table 11. Crashes, Injuries and Objects Struck, By Town or City

Town or City

Total Crashes

Crashes as Percent of State Total

Injuries

Injuries as Percent of Crashes

Objects Struck

Objects Struck as Percent of Crashes

Andover

42

0.06%

14

33%

8

19%

Ansonia

175

0.24%

99

57%

19

11%

Ashford

77

0.11%

30

39%

26

34%

Avon

305

0.42%

86

28%

32

10%

Barkhamsted

63

0.09%

22

35%

20

32%

Beacon Falls

60

0.08%

21

35%

22

37%

Berlin

475

0.65%

170

36%

77

16%

Bethany

60

0.08%

25

42%

15

25%

Bethel

182

0.25%

101

55%

28

15%

Bethlehem

30

0.04%

16

53%

10

33%

Bloomfield

423

0.58%

181

43%

38

9%

Bolton

118

0.16%

39

33%

27

23%

Bozrah

38

0.05%

11

29%

18

47%

Branford

718

0.99%

274

38%

78

11%

Bridgeport

3,496

4.81%

1,975

56%

263

8%

Bridgewater

39

0.05%

18

46%

16

41%

Bristol

1,263

1.74%

622

49%

101

8%

Brookfield

400

0.55%

190

48%

41

10%

Brooklyn

86

0.12%

39

45%

17

20%

Burlington

86

0.12%

34

40%

25

29%

Canaan

24

0.03%

10

42%

8

33%

Canterbury

37

0.05%

20

54%

20

54%

Canton

229

0.32%

88

38%

42

18%

Chaplin

37

0.05%

17

46%

8

22%

Cheshire

649

0.89%

242

37%

97

15%

Chester

60

0.08%

15

25%

33

55%

Clinton

166

0.23%

64

39%

42

25%

Colchester

249

0.34%

95

38%

69

28%

Colebrook

15

0.02%

5

33%

9

60%

Columbia

82

0.11%

34

41%

20

24%

Cornwall

42

0.06%

12

29%

24

57%

Coventry

138

0.19%

61

44%

38

28%

Cromwell

423

0.58%

131

31%

78

18%

Danbury

1,616

2.22%

707

44%

180

11%

Darien

726

1.00%

240

33%

105

14%

Deep River

57

0.08%

17

30%

17

30%

Derby

421

0.58%

146

35%

50

12%

Durham

113

0.16%

39

35%

24

21%

East Granby

86

0.12%

36

42%

14

16%

East Haddam

92

0.13%

33

36%

37

40%

East Hampton

187

0.26%

64

34%

45

24%

East Hartford

1,229

1.69%

516

42%

167

14%

East Haven

530

0.73%

271

51%

47

9%

East Lyme

355

0.49%

98

28%

70

20%

East Windsor

231

0.32%

99

43%

48

21%

Eastford

32

0.04%

13

41%

14

44%

Easton

107

0.15%

40

37%

42

39%

Ellington

154

0.21%

54

35%

39

25%

Enfield

760

1.05%

286

38%

80

11%

Essex

99

0.14%

25

25%

29

29%

Fairfield

896

1.23%

423

47%

121

14%

Farmington

680

0.94%

210

31%

109

16%

Franklin

56

0.08%

21

38%

16

29%

Glastonbury

374

0.51%

173

46%

100

27%

Goshen

35

0.05%

12

34%

21

60%

Granby

104

0.14%

37

36%

26

25%

Greenwich

1,308

1.80%

513

39%

247

19%

Griswold

199

0.27%

71

36%

52

26%

Groton

872

1.20%

296

34%

159

18%

Guilford

449

0.62%

122

27%

133

30%

Haddam

126

0.17%

43

34%

47

37%

Hamden

1,368

1.88%

618

45%

111

8%

Hampton

16

0.02%

10

63%

9

56%

Hartford

3,635

5.00%

2,304

63%

337

9%

Hartland

11

0.02%

4

36%

7

64%

Harwinton

94

0.13%

33

35%

45

48%

Hebron

92

0.13%

36

39%

26

28%

Kent

45

0.06%

19

42%

25

56%

Killingly

355

0.49%

129

36%

73

21%

Killingworth

55

0.08%

19

35%

20

36%

Lebanon

67

0.09%

40

60%

35

52%

Ledyard

242

0.33%

99

41%

55

23%

Lisbon

91

0.13%

32

35%

38

42%

Litchfield

176

0.24%

74

42%

54

31%

Lyme

10

0.01%

4

40%

5

50%

Madison

291

0.40%

69

24%

106

36%

Manchester

1,037

1.43%

554

53%

108

10%

Mansfield (Storrs)

435

0.60%

153

35%

68

16%

Marlborough

115

0.16%

37

32%

44

38%

Meriden

906

1.25%

470

52%

121

13%

Middlebury

262

0.36%

91

35%

60

23%

Middlefield

117

0.16%

37

32%

21

18%

Middletown

571

0.79%

326

57%

125

22%

Milford

1,386

1.91%

645

47%

188

14%

Monroe

364

0.50%

157

43%

46

13%

Montville

406

0.56%

150

37%

107

26%

Morris

35

0.05%

11

31%

18

51%

Naugatuck

324

0.45%

157

48%

52

16%

New Britain

1,018

1.40%

571

56%

134

13%

New Canaan

294

0.40%

119

40%

66

22%

New Fairfield

129

0.18%

55

43%

36

28%

New Hartford

83

0.11%

28

34%

26

31%

New Haven

3,686

5.07%

2,205

60%

352

10%

New London

605

0.83%

296

49%

64

11%

New Milford

486

0.67%

221

45%

80

16%

Newington

676

0.93%

304

45%

42

6%

Newtown

397

0.55%

130

33%

108

27%

Norfolk

35

0.05%

14

40%

27

77%

North Branford

292

0.40%

91

31%

67

23%

North Canaan

54

0.07%

20

37%

16

30%

North Haven

940

1.29%

377

40%

160

17%

North Stonington

222

0.31%

70

32%

54

24%

Norwalk

2,127

2.93%

955

45%

220

10%

Norwich

1,166

1.60%

438

38%

145

12%

Old Lyme

166

0.23%

38

23%

51

31%

Old Saybrook

270

0.37%

76

28%

41

15%

Orange

797

1.10%

294

37%

85

11%

Oxford

120

0.17%

65

54%

31

26%

Plainfield

280

0.39%

106

38%

74

26%

Plainville

511

0.70%

181

35%

62

12%

Plymouth

232

0.32%

90

39%

37

16%

Pomfret

71

0.10%

33

46%

21

30%

Portland

182

0.25%

70

38%

28

15%

Preston

184

0.25%

70

38%

29

16%

Prospect

96

0.13%

33

34%

18

19%

Putnam

115

0.16%

50

43%

25

22%

Redding

123

0.17%

44

36%

43

35%

Ridgefield

447

0.62%

140

31%

80

18%

Rocky Hill

447

0.62%

168

38%

76

17%

Roxbury

27

0.04%

12

44%

9

33%

Salem

73

0.10%

26

36%

20

27%

Salisbury

65

0.09%

32

49%

20

31%

Scotland

28

0.04%

10

36%

12

43%

Seymour

356

0.49%

149

42%

88

25%

Sharon

45

0.06%

20

44%

20

44%

Shelton

503

0.69%

253

50%

83

17%

Sherman

42

0.06%

20

48%

20

48%

Simsbury

370

0.51%

150

41%

66

18%

Somers

93

0.13%

36

39%

23

25%

South Windsor

292

0.40%

132

45%

37

13%

Southbury

316

0.43%

104

33%

89

28%

Southington

813

1.12%

424

52%

125

15%

Sprague

30

0.04%

12

40%

12

40%

Stafford

178

0.24%

83

47%

48

27%

Stamford

2,327

3.20%

1,254

54%

208

9%

Sterling

23

0.03%

16

70%

12

52%

Stonington

501

0.69%

158

32%

111

22%

Stratford

1,227

1.69%

489

40%

134

11%

Suffield

177

0.24%

80

45%

42

24%

Thomaston

134

0.18%

58

43%

34

25%

Thompson

93

0.13%

44

47%

35

38%

Tolland

210

0.29%

78

37%

56

27%

Torrington

713

0.98%

274

38%

92

13%

Trumbull

392

0.54%

125

32%

81

21%

Union

62

0.09%

21

34%

32

52%

Vernon

610

0.84%

239

39%

51

8%

Voluntown

42

0.06%

21

50%

14

33%

Wallingford

1,056

1.45%

451

43%

164

16%

Warren

6

0.01%

3

50%

3

50%

Washington

62

0.09%

28

45%

24

39%

Waterbury

2,798

3.85%

1,603

57%

342

12%

Waterford

584

0.80%

197

34%

130

22%

Watertown

477

0.66%

195

41%

80

17%

West Hartford

1,154

1.59%

592

51%

98

8%

West Haven

1,070

1.47%

594

56%

108

10%

Westbrook

145

0.20%

47

32%

42

29%

Weston

74

0.10%

33

45%

22

30%

Westport

1,118

1.54%

385

34%

134

12%

Wethersfield

616

0.85%

271

44%

79

13%

Willington

113

0.16%

37

33%

53

47%

Wilton

481

0.66%

157

33%

50

10%

Winchester (Winsted)

277

0.38%

114

41%

43

16%

Windham (Willimantic)

499

0.69%

203

41%

50

10%

Windsor

682

0.94%

277

41%

111

16%

Windsor Locks

148

0.20%

90

61%

34

23%

Wolcott

179

0.25%

89

50%

24

13%

Woodbridge

222

0.31%

104

47%

48

22%

Woodbury

141

0.19%

50

35%

32

23%

Woodstock

85

0.12%

46

54%

27

32%

Statewide

72,667

100%

32,882

45%

10,882

15%







Appendix B
Table of Content

Bivariate Analysis of Having Struck an Object

Table 12. Bivariate Analysis of Characteristics Associated with Having Any Type of Object Listed as First Struck

(N=132,918, Driver only)

Characteristic

Total

Yes

No

P value

 

N

N=19206

N=11372

 
   

%

%

 

Mon.

18280

13.44

13.81

0.179

Tues.

18009

15.17

13.28

<0.001

Thurs.

19343

13.21

14.78

<0.001

Fri.

20775

14.77

15.77

<0.001

Wed

18450

14.92

13.7

<0.001

Weekend

38061

28.49

28.66

0.621

No indication drinking

130853

94.7

99.08

<0.001

At-fault driver

70332

89.15

46.79

<0.001

Female

49672

34.1

37.92

<0.001

Age > 64 years

11212

5.87

8.87

<0.001

Age missing

5946

2.64

4.78

<0.001

At-fault traffic unit #1

77924

89.28

53.45

<0.001

At-fault traffic unit #2

48310

9.94

40.8

<0.001

At-fault traffic unit #3

5268

0.62

4.53

<0.001

Collision type: pedestrian

1385

0.12

1.2

<0.001

Involved more than 3 vehicles

16026

2.51

13.67

<0.001

Involved more than 1 pedestrians

1513

0.31

1.28

<0.001

Collision type: angle

8842

1.7

7.49

<0.001

Collision type: backing

2195

0.08

1.92

<0.001

Collision type: jackknife

113

0.26

0.06

<0.001

Collision type: head-on

1329

0.23

1.13

<0.001

Collision type: overturn

791

2.01

0.36

<0.001

Collision type: parking

827

0.04

0.72

<0.001

Collision type: rear-end

49600

2.65

43.17

<0.001

Collision type: sideswipe-same direction

13376

3.92

11.1

<0.001

Collision type: turning-same direction

5551

0.52

4.79

<0.001

Median barrier: no median barrier

122315

78.67

94.28

<0.001

Median barrier: no penetration

9487

16.84

5.5

<0.001

Collision type: fixed object

15443

75.26

0.87

<0.001

Construction

2584

2.15

1.91

0.025

Contributing factor: driving/entered on wrong side of road

1921

0.72

1.57

<0.001

Contributing factor: driver illness

449

1.44

0.15

<0.001

Contributing factor: speed too fast

12242

25.9

6.39

<0.001

Contributing factor: violated traffic control

8775

1.64

7.44

<0.001

Contributing factor: failed to grant right of way

24746

2.65

21.32

<0.001

Contributing factor: following too closely

41907

1.74

36.56

<0.001

Collision type: turning-intersecting paths

16370

1.05

14.22

<0.001

At intersection

65651

21.93

54.03

<0.001

Light condition: dark - lighted

25956

25.87

18.46

<0.001

Light condition: dark-not lighted

6980

17.4

3.2

<0.001

Light condition: dawn

1045

1.91

0.6

<0.001

Light condition: daylight

95335

52.78

74.93

<0.001

Light condition: dusk

2919

1.46

2.32

<0.001

Collision type: moving object

2290

10.05

0.32

<0.001

Non collision

117

0

0.1

<0.001

Collision type: sideswipe-opposite direction

2918

0.89

2.42

<0.001

Collision type: turning-opposite direction

11566

1.15

9.98

<0.001

Other roadway feature: intersection with public roadway

55771

16.48

46.26

<0.001

Other roadway feature: intersection with private roadway

30911

11.76

25.2

<0.001

Road surface: other

199

0.3

0.12

<0.001

Road surface: sand/mud/dirt or oil

1129

1.12

0.8

<0.001

Road surface: snow/slush

6361

10.06

3.89

<0.001

Road surface: dry

93540

60.25

72.08

<0.001

Road surface: ice

2921

5.3

1.67

<0.001

Road surface: wet

28134

22.63

20.92

<0.001

Weather: sleet/ hail

737

1.52

0.39

<0.001

Weather: blowing sand/soil/dirt or snow

454

0.48

0.32

<0.001

Weather: fog

955

1.6

0.57

<0.001

Weather: other

785

0.83

0.55

<0.001

Weather: rain

20349

17.37

14.96

<0.001

Weather: snow

5423

8.26

3.37

<0.001

Weather: severe cross winds

141

0.22

0.09

<0.001

Weather: no adverse condition

103326

69.3

79.16

<0.001

Vehicle type: automobile

109031

84.63

81.59

<0.001

Vehicle type: motorcycle

975

1.27

0.64

<0.001

Vehicle type: truck

12092

8.23

9.24

<0.001

Vehicle type: passenger van

4012

2.3

3.14

<0.001

Airbag deployed

3995

6.42

2.43

<0.001

Injury type: incapacitating injury

3801

4.97

2.5

<0.001

Injury type: non-incapacitating injury

8741

14.95

5.16

<0.001

Injury type: possible injury

20381

15.55

15.3

0.363

Injury type: fatal injury

206

0.64

0.07

<0.001

MVC within past 1 year

1214

1.39

0.83

<0.001

MVC within past 6 months

451

0.53

0.31

<0.001







References
Table of Content

The Crash Outcome Data Evaluation System (CODES), U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, January 1996.

State of Connecticut Department of Transportation Collision Analysis System Auxiliary Input File Documentation, State of Connecticut Department of Transportation, (1995).

J. Landwehr, D. Pregibon, A. Shoemaker: Graphical methods for assessing logistic regression models. JASA 79: 61-63 (1984).

J. Hanley, B. J. McNeil: The meaning and use of the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 143: 29-36 (1992).

T. D. Koepsell, M. E. Wolf, L. McCloskey, et al.: Medical conditions and motor vehicle collision injuries in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc 42: 695-700 (1994).