Reply to comment


Nov. 29, 2024, 5:26 a.m. -  Blofeld

I agree with your take that the study was put together to catch media attention. Judging from the discussion here, I guess it worked, so job \#1 accomplished. The statistics on injury rates being given without participation rates is extremely common in medical papers. I’m not sure why it’s done so often but it drives me up the wall as well. Do MDs really really like integers or do they just like comparing cosmic crisps to mandarins? For that matter, how many spinal cord injuries in total occurred in BC during that time period for any reason? Might be a nice tidbit to include in something like this. The context of the incidents that was collected is also virtually useless from a prevention perspective. Things like perceived speed, trail difficulty, problematic feature (tree, dirt jump, woodwork, rock slab, etc.) or type of riding could actually get causal. If 50 of the 58 injuries happened on dirt jump lines, that changes the entire story here. The comparisons with hockey and football in terms of injury ‘rates’ is also inappropriate. Motocross or ATV riding is in my mind the most obvious comparison that should have been made. Other sports that involve jumping and/or speed would also be interesting, maybe equestrian pursuits or even gymnastics? Motor vehicle accidents would be the big one I’d guess, but the authors certainly wouldn’t want to imply people shouldn’t drive cars. The $200M “lifetime cost” metric also strikes me as sensationalism. Something like obesity or long covid might cost Canadians $10B / year. Do I multiply by 70 to get a comparable number?

Post your comment

Please log in to leave a comment.