Adjusted Injury-Severity Findings Differed From Crude THC Trauma Comparisons

THC positivity alone was not an independent predictor of higher injury-severity categories in the study’s adjusted models, despite differences in simpler comparisons. The adjusted null needs to remain visible alongside the crude findings.

The models compared severity categories

Borst and colleagues analyzed toxicology-screened crash patients from five trauma centers. Their regression compared higher Injury Severity Score categories with scores of one through eight, using the toxicology-negative group as the reference. Adjustment included demographic, year, mechanism and institution-related variables.

The toxicology categories did not share one result

The paper reports that THC alone did not independently predict the higher severity categories after adjustment. Alcohol-positive, combined THC/alcohol and stimulant-related categories had increased odds in the reported models. Their findings should not be relabeled as the adjusted effect of THC alone.

Adjustment changes the question, not the observed injuries

The result does not show that THC protected patients or that cannabis cannot contribute to a collision. It estimates a conditional association among selected injured patients under the model’s assumptions. Residual confounding and selection remain possible. An unadjusted association also cannot be treated as an independent drug effect simply because it is significant. A sound interpretation identifies the outcome category, exposure group and adjustment set, then distinguishes injury severity among people already injured from the separate probability of having a crash. The study supplies neither a population driving-risk multiplier nor an individual impairment determination.

Related analysis: injury severity and population crash risk.

Research cited

Borst and colleagues. Driving under the influence: a multi-center evaluation of vehicular crashes in the era of cannabis legalization. Trauma Surgery & Acute Care Open (2021). DOI: 10.1136/tsaco-2021-000736.

Spread the love


The National Black Lawyers

top 40 lawyers

civil trial law

Lawyers of Distinction

Loading...

Recent Blog Articles

A Cannabis Law’s Enactment Date Was Not the Same Exposure Measure as Retail Access

The driving review identifies a timing problem in policy research: passing a cannabis law and making products available for purchase can occur at different times. A before-and-after comparison needs an exposure definition that matches its question. The review described a gap between milestones Pearlson and colleagues note that retail access…

Spread the love

Read Article: A Cannabis Law’s Enactment Date Was Not the Same Exposure Measure as Retail Access

A Proposed Cannabis-Impairment Fingerprint Was Not a Validated Diagnostic Battery

The driving review suggested that a combination of behavioral deficits might form a useful cannabis-impairment pattern. It presented that as a research possibility, not a completed diagnostic validation. The proposal aimed to combine information The reviewers considered whether several deficits unlikely to co-occur by chance could support a characteristic pattern….

Spread the love

Read Article: A Proposed Cannabis-Impairment Fingerprint Was Not a Validated Diagnostic Battery

A Laboratory Cannabis Screen Needed Evidence That It Worked in Roadside Conditions

A cognitive screen that performs well in a quiet laboratory is not automatically validated for a roadside setting. The driving review identifies practical environmental demands as part of the testing problem. The proposed use environment was demanding The review describes testing at night with limited light and passing-traffic noise. A…

Spread the love

Read Article: A Laboratory Cannabis Screen Needed Evidence That It Worked in Roadside Conditions

Speak with an expert today!

Contact the offices of Okorie Okorocha for professional and reliable advice which you can trust.

Call (424) 363-3347 Contact Us