Table S1: Critical appraisal form

Adapted from:

Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP), Public Health Resource Unit, Institute of Health Science, Oxford.

Oxman AD, Cook DJ, Guyatt GH (1994). Users’ guides to the medical literature. VI. How to use an overview. JAMA 272: 1367-1371.

REVIEW FOCUS Clearly (+2)

Somewhat (+1)

No or can’t tell

(0)

Notes

1. Did the review address a clearly focussed issue?

Consider whether the authors reported inclusion criteria according to PICO or whether there was substantial variation in the studies included with regards to:

Participants (end-users and patients)

Settings

Domain (condition, activity, impact and outcomes considered)

Comparisons made

Pada abstrak dengan tulisan berwarna biru halaman 646 menunjunjukan kriteria no 1 dengan 4 poin yaitu participants, setting, domain dan comparison made terpenuhi dengan baik.

2. Did the review assess a clearly focussed technology?

Consider whether the authors reported explicit inclusion criteria regarding the technical specification of the intervention and its use or whether there was substantial variation in the studies regarding the intervention and its use.

If more than one technology was assessed, were the technologies and their relationship to the other technologies clearly delineated?

Pada method halaman 646 hingga 647 penulis menjelaskan spesifikasi teknis penelitian. Termasuk juga cara mendapatkan data lalu lintas yang dibutuhkan untuk menunjang penelitian

3. Did the authors look for the appropriate sort of papers?

Consider whether the authors reported what study designs were eligible and the

Pada method halaman 647 dan 648 penulis melaporkan

reasons for doing so. Additionally, consider whether the studies had:

Outcomes relevant to review objective

A design and methods appropriate for addressing the review objective

metode penelitian yang dilakukan yaitu case control dan merupakan metode yang relevan untuk menunjang objek penelitian serta menggunakan pembatasan analisis yaitu hanya untuk anak yang berjarak 0,4Km dari rumah untuk mendukung penelitian.

VALIDITY OF REVIEW RESULTS Clearly (+2)

Somewhat (+1)

No or can’t tell (0)

Notes

4. Do you think the important, relevant studies were included?

Look for the usual on the databases used, whether unpublished research searched, if relevant references reviewed, plus searching:

Health Informatics resources

Personal contact with experts

Internet

Additionally, does the search string demonstrate awareness of indexing issues in HI? Has the review been update if much time has passed since the searches and publication?

Pada method halaman 647 dijelaskan bahwa ada sumber info kesehatan, kontak dengan ahli dan juga internet untuk mendukung penelitian. Salah satu contohnya adalah menggunakan stata sofware, data dari departemen teknis lalu lintas dan lain-lain untuk melengkapi kebututuhan data penelitian.

5. Did the review’s authors do enough to assess the quality of the included studies?

Consider whether they performed assessment with tool , characterised quality by assigning level of evidence by study type only, or limited inclusion to rigorous designs etc (unit of analysis

Pada method halaman 647 menjelaskan alat atau cara teknis yang digunakan dalam mendukung penelitian sehingga dapat

especially important, contamination, confound).

membuktikan kebenaran data penelitian tersebut.

6. Were the studies accurately described?

Look for the usual on design, methods and results and quality plus system functionality, integration, deployment strategy, user-system interaction, organisational context, timing of study, and any negative findings.

7. Are the results reported in a clear and meaningful way?

How are the results structured and how are they presented (summarisation, reproduction or interpretation, neither)

Pada result halaman 647 dijelaskan secara jelas perhitungan mengenai rasio kecelakaan anak-anak tertinggi terjadi pada anak-anak asia yaitu 5,8 kali lebih tinggi dibandingkan dengan anak-anak berkulit putih.

8. If the results of included have been combined, was it reasonable to do so?

Consider if there was substantial heterogeneity amongst studies in terms of settings and/or conditions, quality, comparisons made, timing of, system-user interaction, sophistication and/or and deployment strategy.

For meta-analysis consider in addition the choice of effects model and summary measures, and the results of interaction or statistical heterogeneity.

Finally whether the reasons for any variations in impact are analysed and/or discussed.

Pada method dan result halaman 647 disebutkan adanya heterogenitas substansial studi dalam penelitian yaitu ras dari anak-anak objek penelitian, jarak rumah dan waktu penelitian yang berbeda-beda.

9. Did the review demonstrate awareness of its own limitations?

Consider whether the review noted

Limitations of included studies

Pada Limitations halaman 649 penulis menuliskan keterbatasan-keterbatasan yang

Limitations of the review itself

Findings in light of research

ada dalam penelitian tersebut. Salah satunya adalah membatasi pengukuran polisi tidur pada anak-anak kemudian mengabaikan efek perlindungan proteksi dari polisi tidur disekitar rumah anak-anak.

RESULTS Clearly (+2)

Somewhat (+1)

No or can’t tell (0)

Notes

10. Does the review present an overall result?

Consider

If you are clear about the reviews ‘bottom line’ results

What these are (numerically or narratively)

How were the results expressed (conclusiveness/doubt)

Pada abstrak halaman 646 menjelaskan cukup baik mengenai gambaran penelitian. Termasuk hasil dari penelitian yang dilakukan yaitu perhitungan OR pada anak-anak yang mengalami kecelakan lalu lintas di jalan raya.

11. How precise are the results?

Are the results presented with confidence intervals if expressed numerically? Narrative structure for assigning levels of evidence?

APPLICABILTY Clearly Somewhat No or can’t tell

Notes

(+2) (+1) (0)

12. Next steps or implications for considering implementation of such technologies? Appropriate based on findings and other pertinent factors? Further research indicated?

Pada bagian Conclusions halaman 649 menjelaskan adanya pengiimplementasian penelitian dilingkup geografis lokal dan mengundang penelitian tambahan pada efektifitas intervensi lalu lintas

13. Are the results generalisable beyond the confines of the setting in which the work was originally conducted?

Consider whether the authors noted the generalisability of their results and any heterogeneity. Additionally, consider whether enough detail was presented on system functionality, integration, deployment strategy, user-system interaction, organisational context, timing of study, and any negative findings. Importantly, the proportion of studies from benchmark leaders and academic institutions should also be considered.

Pada conclusions halaman 649 dijelaskan proses pengenerealisasian penelitian dilakukan ditempat awal dilakukan penelitian dan digunakan dalam ruang lingkup lokal dan tidak melampaui dari batas-batas pengaturan pengerjaan penelitian.

14. Were all relevant outcomes considered?

Depending on the review objective, were all outcomes relevant to answering that question considered?

Conclusions halaman 649 secara tidak langsung menunjukan relevansi karena penelitian menggunakan observasi langsung bukti bahwa kecepatan berpengaruh terhadap penurunan jumlah cedera pejalan kaki anak-anak.

15. Are you able to assess the benefit

versus risk and costs?

Even if this is not addressed by the review, what do you think? Was there any discussion of negatives such as costs or risks?

Dalam discussion halaman 647, tidak dibahas mengenai pembiayaan pembuatan polisi tidur disuatu lingkungan padat anak-anak untuk mendukung keberhasilan penelitian penurunan jumlah pejalan kaki anak-anak yang cedera akibat kecelakaan lalu lintas