Background
Globally, the burden of trauma is currently a major public health concern. Road traffic injury (RTI) is the ninth foremost cause of death worldwide [
1] and the eighth cause of disability-adjusted life year (DALY) [
2]. The average number of deaths occurring on the world’s roads reaches 1.24 million every year [
3]. RTIs also cause 20 to 50 million non-fatal injuries yearly followed by disability [
3]. Globally, the majority of deaths from road traffic accidents (RTAs) occur in car occupants (31%), followed by motorised two to three wheelers (23%) and pedestrians (22%) [
4]. RTIs pose a huge economic burden to countries globally and especially for developing countries where the cost of RTAs represented between 1 and 2% of Gross National Product (GNP) every year [
5]. Therefore, the need for effective prevention of RTAs across the world is an imperative.
The World Health Organisation (WHO) published a report in 2004 on interventions effective in addressing and reversing the trends of RTAs [
6]. Prominent among these interventions, is the enforcement of seatbelt usage [
6]. Non-adherence to seatbelt usage increases the likelihood of being injured during motor vehicle crashes (MVCs) [
7]. Moreover, compliance with seatbelt use has been associated with reduced mortality after MVCs in several countries, as well as reduced severity of injuries in car occupants [
8‐
10]. Indeed, since the 1960s, proper usage of seatbelts has been proven effective in reducing crash fatality rates [
8,
11]. Crandall et al [
12] assessed the efficacy of passenger’s safety equipment during MVCs in the United States (US). They found that the use of lap-shoulder belts was associated with decreased fatality by 72% (OR = 0.28, 95% CI: 0.25, 0.31). Similarly, Dinh- Zar et al [
13] demonstrated that the effectiveness of seatbelt use was greater in those accidents with increased likelihood of ejection such as ‘run-off-the-road’ and frontal crashes. Sen and Mizzen [
14] in a Canadian study, found that a 1% increased use of seatbelts was associated with between 0.17 to 0.21% reduction in crash fatality. In a more recent study, Cumins and collaborators [
9] analysed the US National Trauma Data Bank. They found that the use of seatbelts reduced mortality by 51% for car occupants. This reduction increased to 67% with the combination of seatbelt usage and airbags.
However, research suggests that seatbelt use may also be associated with some adverse outcomes. A plethora of seatbelt injuries are increasingly being described in the literature [
15‐
22]. Signs of seatbelt usage on the body are pathognomonic of seatbelt injuries [
10]. A seatbelt sign is a linear skin discoloration secondary to bleeding under the skin caused by seatbelts during MVCs [
23]. The seatbelt syndrome refers to an umbrella term used to refer to a variety of injuries caused by seatbelts to car occupants during motor vehicle accidents (MVAs) [
24]. The seatbelt syndrome encompasses a seatbelt sign on the chest or the abdominal wall, a fracture of the lumbar section of the spine and perforation of a hollow viscus [
17,
23,
25]. Incorrect use of seatbelts in adults has been associated with seatbelt syndrome [
19] although it has been demonstrated that the paediatric population is affected most. [
26]. Lapbelts usually cause abdominal, pelvic or spinal injuries. In addition to abdominopelvic and spinal injuries, the three-point belt is associated with injuries of the chest, the heart, lungs, the brachial plexus of nerves and major blood vessels [
25,
27]. When a seatbelt sign occurs on the abdominal wall, abdominal organs might be injured [
28].
In spite of poor outcomes being associated with improper use of seatbelts, it is generally accepted that proper use of seatbelts is effective in reducing fatalities [
10]. There remains a gap however, in the literature concerning the effects of seatbelt use on specific major road traffic-related injuries. Given the increasing attention and action on road safety, it is important to ascertain the exact relationship between seatbelt use and major injuries of vehicle occupants during vehicle crashes. This review sought to investigate the association between seatbelt use and the risk of specific major road traffic injuries among adult car occupants. Injuries considered as major road traffic-related injuries in this paper are head injuries, neck injuries, facial injuries, spinal injuries, thoracic injuries, abdominal injuries and limb injuries.
Methods
Search strategy
Searches were conducted by two independent reviewers in electronic databases, through citation trails and references of key papers. Databases searched included Web of Science (all databases), Science direct, Springer link, Biomed central, Embase, the EBSCO host and all regional indexes of the Global Index Medicus (GIM). Relevant Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT) were used to combine appropriate Medical Subject Headings (Mesh) and/or keywords.
Key words and associated search terms used were combined as depicted in the following search equation: Σ = [(seatbelt OR lapbelt OR shoulder belt OR safety belt OR car restraint OR three point belt), AND (impact OR effect) AND {(spinal injuries OR spinal cord injuries OR spinal fractures OR spinal cord compression); OR (abdominal injuries OR liver injuries OR hepatic injuries OR splenic injuries OR kidney injuries OR intestinal injuries), OR (thoracic injuries OR cardiac injuries OR chest injuries OR lung injuries OR pulmonary injuries OR heart injuries), OR (facial injuries OR mandibular fractures OR maxillofacial injuries OR orbital fractures OR corneal injuries OR skull fractures OR mandibular injuries OR eye injuries OR jaw fractures), OR (head injuries OR brain injuries OR cerebral hemorrhage OR brain concussion OR craniocerebral trauma OR neck injuries), OR (limb injuries OR lower extremity injuries OR upper extremity injuries)}, AND (adults OR occupants OR passengers OR drivers OR seaters) NOT (children OR paediatric OR infants OR pregnant)]
Study selection was independently carried out by two coinvestigators. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. Titles and abstracts of all papers retrieved from the searches were screened for selection using predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria. This was followed by retrieval of full texts of articles which met the inclusion criteria. At this stageStudies meeting one or more exclusion criteria were not included. Reference lists of included studies were searched for additional studies which might have been missed by our searches. Initial search and selection of articles were carried out between June and august 2015 and updated in July 2018
Inclusion/exclusion criteria
Articles reporting seatbelt use and injury outcomes were considered. Given that cohort studies provide stronger evidence than case control studies [
30], only cohort studies published in English from January 2005 (after publication of the world health report on road safety in 2004) to July 2018 and comparing adult seatbelt users and non-users were considered for selection. Subsequently, studies were categorized into relevant major injuries in line with our research objectives. Selection of studies was not based on specific types of seatbelt or vehicle or crash type. Thus, all forms of seatbelts, all types of MVCs and all types of collisions were considered. Vehicles included cars, vans or trucks. Outcomes of interest were types of injury: head, neck, facial, thoracic, abdominal, spinal, and limb injuries.
Data extraction and quality assessment
Quality assessment was carried out using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) tool for cohort studies [
31]. The SIGN tool for cohort studies has 18 items: five items address issues in the selection of study participants; four items assess measurement of outcomes while two address measurement of exposure; four items address other forms of biases; two items assess the control of confounding; and one item assesses statistical analysis [
31]. The SIGN tool also provides an overall quality score for studies. Low quality studies which had at least three negative answers for the relevant items listed above were rejected based on lack of appropriate methodological robustness. Studies included after the methodological quality appraisal were categorised into acceptable or highly acceptable. Data extracted from included studies were: study characteristics (title, authors, and references), methods (sampling and sample size, assessment of bias) and findings relevant to this review (e.g. seatbelt use and injury outcomes).
As this review included observational studies (cohort design), it was appropriate to assume variations in effect size between individual studies, thus the random effects model was used for statistical synthesis. Pooled relative risk and confidence intervals were calculated and where possible, prediction intervals for the pooled effect sizes were estimated. Tests for statistical heterogeneity including I2, τ2 and H statistics were computed to examine potential variability of the effect estimate between the studies beyond the effect of chance. Meta-analyses were conducted by crash type, and separately for the different anatomical categories of road traffic-related injuries: head injuries, neck injuries, facial injuries, spinal injuries, thoracic injuries, abdominal injuries and limb injuries. Where possible, subgroup analysis was conducted to explore potential sources of heterogeneity. The funnel plot and the Egger’s regression test were used to detect evidence of publication bias. STATA version 15, StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA was used for statistical analysis.
Discussion
This systematic review and meta-analysis carried out to assess the associations between seatbelt use and major injuries of vehicle occupants during RTAs appears to be the first of its kind. Overall, seatbelt use has been shown to provide a 53% reduction in risk of any injury among vehicle occupants following MVAs. However, this review suggests that seatbelt use has a more limited safety when specific outcomes are studied including head injuries, neck injuries, thoracic injuries and limb injuries. The pooled estimate for risk of injury by crash types also varied. Taken together this review was not able to provide evidence to demonstrate the protective role of seatbelt use for these outcomes.
Importantly however, findings from this review indicate that seatbelt use reduces the risk of facial injuries, spinal injuries, and abdominal injuries. By and large, there was no statistically significant heterogeneity between studies included in the pooled estimate for neck, thoracic and abdominal injuries. Perhaps, this is due to the fact that only 2 studies were used in quantifying the risk of these injuries. However, there was a significantly high heterogeneity in the effect estimates of the studies in the pooled analysis for facial injuries, head injuries as well as for spinal injuries. One of the studies included in the pooled analysis for risk of head and spinal injuries focused on car rollover fatalities [
33] whereas the other studies analyzed MVCs in general, be it fatalities or not. Perhaps this could also explain the high heterogeneity.
Our findings concur with previous studies on this topic. For instance, Hilary et al [
44] found no relationship between seatbelt use and severity of head injury (
P = 0.13) and that unbelted car occupants are more prone to posterior brain lesions. These findings support the inability of our study to demonstrate the protective role of seatbelts against head injuries. On the contrary, it has also been demonstrated in some case series that seatbelt use is associated with reduced severity of brain injury and decreased incidence of brain injuries [
45,
46]. Similarly, Mohammadzadeh et al [
47] observed that seatbelt use reduces the proportions of head injury. Thus, evidence on the impact of seatbelt use on head injuries seems to be inconclusive.
The protective role of seatbelts against spinal injuries, and abdominal injuries also seems equivocal given that seatbelt injuries have been reported. Although findings of the current study suggest that the risk of abdominal injuries is lowest for belted occupants, the seatbelt syndrome which encompasses abdominal injury, has been extensively described in the literature as caused by improper seatbelt use [
17,
23,
25]. This syndrome mostly affects the pediatric population [
26], but it has also been documented in adults [
22]. Improper seatbelt use has also been associated with intra-abdominal and spinal injuries [
16,
22]. Seatbelt use has been shown to be associated with increased spinal injury severity, neurological deficit and fatality [
48]. Compared to unbelted individuals, the frequency of thoracic and lumbar spinal injuries was shown to be higher in belted occupants [
48].
It is important to note however, that the majority of evidence not supporting the protective role of seatbelt use against major injuries of car passengers stems from case-series, case-reports and some few cross-sectional and case-control studies [
43,
45‐
47]. These study designs are prone to numerous forms of bias and confounding, and therefore not methodologically robust enough to infer causality in the relationships between exposure and outcomes [
49]. Findings from such studies therefore need to be interpreted with caution.
It has been observed that seatbelt injuries vary with crash types. For instance, Kuan et al [
50] observed that renal injuries associated with seatbelt use mostly occurred in frontal and side impact collisions. In these instances, drivers usually suffer from right kidney injuries, while left renal injuries were characteristics of other car occupants. Dinh- Zar and colleagues [
13] reported that, perhaps, the protective effect of seatbelt use is more pronounced during frontal crashes as they have higher likelihood of ejection during the RTAs such as run-off-the-road collision. Indeed our study found significant differences in risk of major injury between users and non-users of seatbelt by crash types as shown in Fig.
3. In most cases: including multiple, roll over, side or rear, risk of injury was lower among passengers who wore a seatbelt compared to those who did not. However, data for some crash types (front, side and rear) were provided by only one study each which would suggest further investigations are required before firmer conclusions can be made.
It should be noted that other studies do exist that might improve our knowledge in this area but were excluded from our review on the basis of exclusion criteria. For instance, Ogundele and collaborators assessed the impact of seatbelt usage in limiting injury severity during MVCs [
51] but was excluded as it included a paediatric population for whom special restraints are used. More recently, Renson et al. described the relationships between seatbelt use and risk of high grade hepatic injury [
52]. Similarly, Mc Mullin et al. analysed facial injuries in relationship with seatbelt use [
53]. Such papers were rejected as only patients with specific injuries were included (no comparison group), thus estimation of risk of injuries in belted versus unbelted car occupants was not possible. Matsui and collaborators recently described factors causing abdominal injuries during frontal collisions [
54]. This was a simulation using a dummy wearing a three point seatbelt and for this reason, this experimental study was excluded. Lastly, some studies with less robust methodology (case-series, case-studies and cross sectional studies) [
46,
47,
49] were excluded due to the inherent bias which would have been introduced.
This review synthesized the best available evidence from cohort studies on seatbelt use and road traffic injuries. Despite filling an important gap in the literature, our study does have limitations. Like most observational studies, meta-analysis of cohort studies is less methodologically robust compared to meta-analysis of well-conducted randomized controlled trials (RCTs) [
55]. Thus, inclusion of observational studies only might have distorted effect estimates potentially contributing to the high heterogeneity found in this study. In addition, ten of the studies included [
32‐
42] in this review used secondary data to investigate the effectiveness of seatbelt use. It is difficult to determine the adequacy of selection of the study population, measurements of exposure and outcomes in retrospective cohort studies. Moreover, the methodological quality appraisal conducted as part of this review rated all eleven studies included as acceptable in strength indicating some inherent weaknesses in the studies included in this review. In addition, due to the limited number of studies included, multivariable meta-regression could not be performed to evaluate the impact of potential covariates, which might explain heterogeneity. Thus, exploration of heterogeneity was not exhaustive. Additionally, only studies published in English were included in the review, thus the potential for language bias cannot be ruled out. Lastly, data was not available to ascertain if seatbelt use was in conformity with the current legislation. In the pooled analyses and where possible, prediction intervals were estimated to better make sense out of estimates given the large variations. Although we found a beneficial effect of seatbelt use (for risk of any injury and some injury types and crash types), prediction intervals in most instances suggested that future studies might include the null or opposite effect of seatbelt use on risk of injury. This would however pertain specifically to studies conducted in similar populations or settings as those included in this meta-analysis. The transferability of the impact of future studies conducted in other settings (different from those in our meta-analysis) might potentially be different and not necessarily contradict our findings as acknowledged by other authors [
56]. Future reviews should also consider the possibility of using more inclusive/wider inclusion criteria including studies conducted using other types of observational study designs.