ライフサイエンスコーパス: air bag

1 ratios (aRRs) between the two generations of air bags.

2 ars 1997-2002, relative to cars without side air bags.

3 fidence interval: 0.79, 1.01) for torso-only air bags.

4 mpact mortality, which is unaffected by side air bags.

5 ren are being killed than are being saved by air bags.

6 dual air bags and for cars with driver-only air bags.

7 all new cars now are equipped with passenger air bags.

8 dual air bags and for cars with driver-only air bags.

9 d-certified air bags versus first-generation air bags.

10 Side air bags, a relatively new technology designed to protec

11 use of each generation of air bag versus no air bag, adjusted for seat position, restraint use, sex,

12 in aRRs between first- and second-generation air bags among other subgroups were small and not statis

13 Combined air bag and seat belt use reduced mortality by more than

14 fidence interval: 0.43, 0.71) for head/torso air bags and 0.89 (95% confidence interval: 0.79, 1.01)

15 xpected in frontal crashes of cars with dual air bags and 11% lower in all crashes.

16 1992 through 1995 model year cars with dual air bags and for cars with driver-only air bags.

17 atal crashes was compared for cars with dual air bags and for cars with driver-only air bags.

18 his study confirms the independent effect of air bags and seat belts in reducing mortality.

19 his change facilitated depowering of frontal air bags and was intended to reduce air bag-induced deat

20 g nearside driver deaths, whereas torso-only air bags appear less protective.

21 Head/torso side air bags appear to be very effective in reducing nearsid

22 Air bags are designed to protect occupants in frontal cr

23 Determining whether passenger air bags are saving lives is important, particularly bec

24 troversy ensued as to whether sled-certified air bags could increase adult fatality risk.

25 ured the mortality reduction associated with air bag deployment and seat belt use for drivers involve

26 rences between the paired crash vehicles for air bag deployment and seat belt use were measured with

27 Air bag deployment reduced mortality 63% (crude odds rat

28 ed in 1992 through 1995 model cars with dual air bags during 1992 through 1995.

29 lving first-generation versus sled-certified air bags during 1998-2005 was conducted by using Fatalit

30 First-generation air bags entail a decreased risk of death for most front

31 ificant interaction between vehicle type and air bag generation suggested that sled-certified air bag

32 dren younger than 10 years in cars with dual air bags had a 34% increased risk of dying in frontal cr

33 is important, particularly because passenger air bags have caused some deaths among children and adul

34 computed for head/torso and torso-only side air bags in cars from model years 1997-2002, relative to

35 Installation of air bags in new passenger vehicles is a major initiative

36 frontal air bags and was intended to reduce air bag-induced deaths.

37 bag generation suggested that sled-certified air bags may have reduced the risk of dying in head-on c

38 weight, age) and driver (age, sex) factors, air bags (OR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.58, 0.87) and any combina

39 US air bag regulations were changed in 1997 to allow tests

40 The further addition of front passenger air bags results in an incremental net benefit at a high

41 ce the cost-effectiveness of front passenger air bags, such as moving children to the rear seat.

42 Both air bag systems save life-years at costs that are compar

43 Results were sensitive to the unit cost of air bag systems, their effectiveness, baseline fatality

44 ate countermeasures to reduce the dangers of air bags to children and adults are suggested.

45 The addition of driver's side air bags to safety belts results in net health benefits

46 ions in right front passenger deaths in dual air bag vehicles were estimated.

47 tios for death for use of each generation of air bag versus no air bag, adjusted for seat position, r

48 river deaths in vehicles with sled-certified air bags versus first-generation air bags.

49 .86, 0.94); the aRR with a second-generation air bag was 0.89 (95% CI: 0.79, 1.00) (p = 0.83 for comp

50 s, the aRR for death with a first-generation air bag was 0.90 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.86, 0.

51 .30), while the aRR with a second-generation air bag was 1.10 (95% CI: 0.63, 1.93) (p = 0.20 for comp

52 age 6 years, the aRR with a first-generation air bag was 1.66 (95% CI: 1.20, 2.30), while the aRR wit

53 atality risk for drivers with sled-certified air bags was not observed.

54 for right front passengers in cars with dual air bags was reduced 14% among those reported to be usin

55 Passenger air bags were associated with substantial reductions in

56 Second-generation air bags were developed to reduce the risks for children

57 rotective effects associated with torso-only air bags were observed in single-vehicle crashes and amo

58 Risk was reduced when cars with head/torso air bags were struck by cars/minivans (significant) or p