We have located links that may give you full text access.
CLINICAL TRIAL
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
Driving under light and dark conditions: effects of alcohol and diazepam in young and older subjects.
European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 2000 September
OBJECTIVES: Driving at night time increases accident risk due to visual conditions, fatigue and impaired performance. In addition, the use of alcohol and benzodiazepines may enhance the risks related to night-time driving. We studied these aspects of traffic safety in a simulated driving test with young and older drivers.
METHODS: In a double-blind, crossover, placebo-controlled study, nine young subjects, aged 22-24 years, performed simulated driving in both 'light' and 'dark' conditions, before and 1.5 h and 4 h after 0.8 g x kg(-1) ethanol (EOH) or 15 mg diazepam (DZ). Further, nine older subjects, aged 55-77 years, were similarly tested, but their EOH dose was 0.7 g x kg(-1) and the DZ dose was 10 mg. The tests were vigilance assessment on visual analogue scales (VAS), simulated driving under light and dark conditions for 6 min each and digit symbol substitution (DSS).
RESULTS: In the young subjects, both EOH and DZ similarly impaired DSS, with DZ causing more subjective drowsiness, clumsiness, mental slowness and poor overall performance than EOH. During simulated driving, both EOH and DZ impaired simple and complex tracking (EOH > DZ) and prolonged reaction times (EOH = DZ). Impairment of performance was practically identical under light and dark conditions. In the older subjects, objective performance on DSS was poorer (-30%) than that of the young ones, and subjective impairment was marginal. During simulated driving, the baseline levels of variables in older subjects showed definite impairment (errors +100% to +500%) when compared with young subjects. Active drugs impaired several variables (EOH > DZ), but the statistical significances were fewer than in young subjects. Increase in reaction errors reached statistical significance, especially while driving in the dark. Otherwise the driving results in light and dark were not notably different.
CONCLUSION: Young subjects drew good baselines but were sensitive to EOH and DZ, whilst the older subjects showed poor baselines but were less sensitive to EOH and DZ. Although the baseline driving and responses to treatments were different in young and older subjects, their driving and psychomotor impairment were unaffected by light conditions.
METHODS: In a double-blind, crossover, placebo-controlled study, nine young subjects, aged 22-24 years, performed simulated driving in both 'light' and 'dark' conditions, before and 1.5 h and 4 h after 0.8 g x kg(-1) ethanol (EOH) or 15 mg diazepam (DZ). Further, nine older subjects, aged 55-77 years, were similarly tested, but their EOH dose was 0.7 g x kg(-1) and the DZ dose was 10 mg. The tests were vigilance assessment on visual analogue scales (VAS), simulated driving under light and dark conditions for 6 min each and digit symbol substitution (DSS).
RESULTS: In the young subjects, both EOH and DZ similarly impaired DSS, with DZ causing more subjective drowsiness, clumsiness, mental slowness and poor overall performance than EOH. During simulated driving, both EOH and DZ impaired simple and complex tracking (EOH > DZ) and prolonged reaction times (EOH = DZ). Impairment of performance was practically identical under light and dark conditions. In the older subjects, objective performance on DSS was poorer (-30%) than that of the young ones, and subjective impairment was marginal. During simulated driving, the baseline levels of variables in older subjects showed definite impairment (errors +100% to +500%) when compared with young subjects. Active drugs impaired several variables (EOH > DZ), but the statistical significances were fewer than in young subjects. Increase in reaction errors reached statistical significance, especially while driving in the dark. Otherwise the driving results in light and dark were not notably different.
CONCLUSION: Young subjects drew good baselines but were sensitive to EOH and DZ, whilst the older subjects showed poor baselines but were less sensitive to EOH and DZ. Although the baseline driving and responses to treatments were different in young and older subjects, their driving and psychomotor impairment were unaffected by light conditions.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app