Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 18, 2026

A Test Bed to Examine Helmet Fit and Retention and Biomechanical Measures of Head and Neck Injury in Simulated Impact
Published on: September 21, 2017
Rear-facing versus forward-facing child restraints: an updated assessment
Timothy L McMurry1, Kristy B Arbogast2, Christopher P Sherwood3
1Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA.
Insights
Child safety seats in rear-facing child restraint systems (RFCRS) are recommended for young children. While US data is limited, non-US evidence supports keeping children in RFCRS longer to reduce injuries.
Area of Science:
- Pediatric safety
- Transportation safety
- Biomechanical engineering
Background:
- Current recommendations for rear-facing child restraint systems (RFCRS) are based on lab tests and non-US data.
- Concerns about the strength of US field evidence prompted a re-evaluation.
Purpose of the Study:
- To re-evaluate US field evidence supporting RFCRS recommendations using the NASS-CDS database.
- To analyze injury rates for infants in RFCRS versus forward-facing child restraint systems (FFCRS).
Main Methods:
- Utilized the National Automotive Sampling System Crashworthiness Data System (NASS-CDS) database (1988-2015).
- Compared injury rates for children aged 0-23 months in RFCRS and FFCRS using weighted chi-squared tests.
Main Results:
- Analysis included 1107 children; 47 sustained significant injuries (ISS ≥ 9).
- Both 0- and 1-year-olds in RFCRS showed lower injury rates than those in FFCRS.
- Sample size was insufficient for robust statistical power or covariate-controlled regression.
Conclusions:
- Non-US field data and lab tests support extended RFCRS use.
- US NASS-CDS data, while indicating lower injury rates in RFCRS, is too limited to strongly support current recommendations.
Objectives:
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the American Academy of Pediatrics recommend children be placed in rear-facing child restraint systems (RFCRS) until at least age 2. These recommendations are based on laboratory biomechanical tests and field data analyses. Due to concerns raised by an independent researcher, we re-evaluated the field evidence in favour of RFCRS using the National Automotive Sampling System Crashworthiness Data System (NASS-CDS) database.
Methods:
Children aged 0 or 1 year old (0-23 months) riding in either rear-facing or forward-facing child restraint systems (FFCRS) were selected from the NASS-CDS database, and injury rates were compared by seat orientation using survey-weighted χ2 tests. In order to compare with previous work, we analysed NASS-CDS years 1988-2003, and then updated the analyses to include all available data using NASS-CDS years 1988-2015.
Results:
Years 1988-2015 of NASS-CDS contained 1107 children aged 0 or 1 year old meeting inclusion criteria, with 47 of these children sustaining injuries with Injury Severity Score of at least 9. Both 0-year-old and 1-year-old children in RFCRS had lower rates of injury than children in FFCRS, but the available sample size was too small for reasonable statistical power or to allow meaningful regression controlling for covariates.
Conclusions:
Non-US field data and laboratory tests support the recommendation that children be kept in RFCRS for as long as possible, but the US NASS-CDS field data are too limited to serve as a strong statistical basis for these recommendations.
Related Concept Videos
Assessment of Airway, Skin Color, and Use of Accessory Muscles
Introduction
The initial evaluation of a patient's respiratory system...
Assessment of Respiration
Subjective Assessment: Nurses interview the patient to gather information directly during the subjective assessment. It includes questions about the individual's medical history, medications, and symptoms, focusing on past respiratory conditions like...
Rigid Body Equilibrium Problems - II
Consider two children sitting on a seesaw, which has negligible mass. The first child has a mass (m1) of 26 kg and sits at point A, which is 1.6 meters (r1) from the pivot point B; the second child has a mass (m2) of 32 kg and sits at point C. How far from the pivot point B should the second child sit (r2) to balance the seesaw?
Drug Dosing: Infants and Children
Anatomical Positions
The body is upright, facing forward, and standing erect.
The feet are parallel and flat on the floor.
The arms are hanging by the...
Attachment

