Ole Rogeberg1. 1. Frisch Centre, Norway. Electronic address: ole.rogeberg@frisch.uio.no.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Culpability studies, a common study design in the cannabis crash risk literature, typically report odds-ratios (OR) indicating the raised risks of a culpable accident. This parameter is of unclear policy relevance, and is frequently misinterpreted as an estimate of the increased crash risk, a practice that introduces a substantial "interpretational bias". METHODS: A Bayesian statistical model for culpability study counts is developed to provide inference for both culpable and total crash risks, with a hierarchical effect specification to allow for meta-analysis across studies with potentially heterogeneous risk parameter values. The model is assessed in a bootstrap study and applied to data from 13 published culpability studies. RESULTS: The model outperforms the culpability OR in bootstrap analyses. Used on actual study data, the average increase in crash risk is estimated at 1.28 (1.16-1.40). The pooled increased risk of a culpable crash is estimated as 1.42 (95% credibility interval 1.11-1.75), which is similar to pooled estimates using traditional ORs (1.46, 95% CI: 1.24-1.72). The attributable risk fraction of cannabis impaired driving is estimated to lie below 2% for all but two of the included studies. CONCLUSIONS: Culpability ORs exaggerate risk increases and parameter uncertainty when misinterpreted as total crash ORs. The increased crash risk associated with THC-positive drivers in culpability studies is low.
BACKGROUND: Culpability studies, a common study design in the cannabis crash risk literature, typically report odds-ratios (OR) indicating the raised risks of a culpable accident. This parameter is of unclear policy relevance, and is frequently misinterpreted as an estimate of the increased crash risk, a practice that introduces a substantial "interpretational bias". METHODS: A Bayesian statistical model for culpability study counts is developed to provide inference for both culpable and total crash risks, with a hierarchical effect specification to allow for meta-analysis across studies with potentially heterogeneous risk parameter values. The model is assessed in a bootstrap study and applied to data from 13 published culpability studies. RESULTS: The model outperforms the culpability OR in bootstrap analyses. Used on actual study data, the average increase in crash risk is estimated at 1.28 (1.16-1.40). The pooled increased risk of a culpable crash is estimated as 1.42 (95% credibility interval 1.11-1.75), which is similar to pooled estimates using traditional ORs (1.46, 95% CI: 1.24-1.72). The attributable risk fraction of cannabis impaired driving is estimated to lie below 2% for all but two of the included studies. CONCLUSIONS: Culpability ORs exaggerate risk increases and parameter uncertainty when misinterpreted as total crash ORs. The increased crash risk associated with THC-positive drivers in culpability studies is low.
Authors: Thomas R Arkell; Frederick Vinckenbosch; Richard C Kevin; Eef L Theunissen; Iain S McGregor; Johannes G Ramaekers Journal: JAMA Date: 2020-12-01 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Ashley Brooks-Russell; Tim Brown; Kyle Friedman; Julia Wrobel; John Schwarz; Gregory Dooley; Karen A Ryall; Benjamin Steinhart; Elise Amioka; Gary Milavetz; George Sam Wang; Michael J Kosnett Journal: Accid Anal Prev Date: 2021-08-14
Authors: Francesca N Delling; Eric Vittinghoff; Thomas A Dewland; Mark J Pletcher; Jeffrey E Olgin; Gregory Nah; Kirstin Aschbacher; Christina D Fang; Emily S Lee; Shannon M Fan; Dhruv S Kazi; Gregory M Marcus Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-05-15 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Deepika Slawek; Senthil Raj Meenrajan; Marika Rose Alois; Paige Comstock Barker; Irene Mison Estores; Robert Cook Journal: J Prim Care Community Health Date: 2019 Jan-Dec