Daniel K Schneider1,2, Ravi K Grandhi2,3, Purnima Bansal4, George E Kuntz2, Kate E Webster5, Kelsey Logan1, Kim D Barber Foss1,6, Gregory D Myer1,2,3,7,8,9. 1. Division of Sports Medicine, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA. 2. College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA. 3. Department of Pediatrics, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA. 4. Division of Primary Care/Sports Medicine, Jennie Stuart Medical Center, Hopkinsville, Kentucky, USA. 5. School of Allied Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 6. Division of Health Sciences, Mount St. Joseph University, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA. 7. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA. 8. The Micheli Center for Sports Injury Prevention, Waltham, Massachusetts, USA. 9. Department of Orthopaedics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the current review was to systematically identify, evaluate and synthesise trials that examine concussion prevention via equipment, educational programmes and training programmes. DATA SOURCES: PubMed and EBSCO host (CINAHL, MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus). ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: The electronic databases PubMed and EBSCO were searched using the phrases: concussion prevention equipment, concussion prevention training and concussion prevention education. Included studies utilised a prospective study design to evaluate the preventative effect of: (1) equipment, (2) training or (3) educational programmes on the incidence of concussions in comparison to a control group. DATA EXTRACTION: Demographic data and intervention methods were recorded. Intervention and control group concussion rates and superficial head injury rates were extracted and combined using random-effects relative risk meta-analysis. RESULTS: 14 studies evaluated interventions of novel protective equipment. One prospective investigation evaluated an educational programme. The relative risk of concussion for participants enrolled in the interventional arms of trials was not significantly different from that in standard practice arms (RR=0.78, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.11, χ2=1.8, p=0.17; I2=85.3%, 95% CI 71.5% to 90.8%). The relative risk of concussion for participants wearing protective equipment (ie, headgear, full face shields) relative to their counterparts wearing standard or no equipment, calculated from seven available reports, showed no effect of intervention (RR=0.82, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.20, χ2=1.06, p=0.30; I2=86.7%, 95% CI 73.3% to 91.8%). The relative risk of superficial head injury for participants wearing protective equipment relative to their counterparts, calculated from three reports, showed a significant risk reduction (RR=0.41, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.56, χ2=34.13, p<0.0001; I2=53.1%, 95% CI 0% to 85.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Prospective controlled studies indicate that certain protective equipment may prevent superficial head injury, but these items are suboptimal for concussion prevention in sport. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the current review was to systematically identify, evaluate and synthesise trials that examine concussion prevention via equipment, educational programmes and training programmes. DATA SOURCES: PubMed and EBSCO host (CINAHL, MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus). ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: The electronic databases PubMed and EBSCO were searched using the phrases: concussion prevention equipment, concussion prevention training and concussion prevention education. Included studies utilised a prospective study design to evaluate the preventative effect of: (1) equipment, (2) training or (3) educational programmes on the incidence of concussions in comparison to a control group. DATA EXTRACTION: Demographic data and intervention methods were recorded. Intervention and control group concussion rates and superficial head injury rates were extracted and combined using random-effects relative risk meta-analysis. RESULTS: 14 studies evaluated interventions of novel protective equipment. One prospective investigation evaluated an educational programme. The relative risk of concussion for participants enrolled in the interventional arms of trials was not significantly different from that in standard practice arms (RR=0.78, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.11, χ2=1.8, p=0.17; I2=85.3%, 95% CI 71.5% to 90.8%). The relative risk of concussion for participants wearing protective equipment (ie, headgear, full face shields) relative to their counterparts wearing standard or no equipment, calculated from seven available reports, showed no effect of intervention (RR=0.82, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.20, χ2=1.06, p=0.30; I2=86.7%, 95% CI 73.3% to 91.8%). The relative risk of superficial head injury for participants wearing protective equipment relative to their counterparts, calculated from three reports, showed a significant risk reduction (RR=0.41, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.56, χ2=34.13, p<0.0001; I2=53.1%, 95% CI 0% to 85.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Prospective controlled studies indicate that certain protective equipment may prevent superficial head injury, but these items are suboptimal for concussion prevention in sport. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.
Authors: Samantha E Scarneo; Zachary Y Kerr; Emily Kroshus; Johna K Register-Mihalik; Yuri Hosokawa; Rebecca L Stearns; Lindsay J DiStefano; Douglas J Casa Journal: J Athl Train Date: 2019-03-14 Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: Weihong Yuan; Kim D Barber Foss; Staci Thomas; Christopher A DiCesare; Jonathan A Dudley; Katie Kitchen; Brooke Gadd; James L Leach; David Smith; Mekibib Altaye; Paul Gubanich; Ryan T Galloway; Paul McCrory; Julian E Bailes; Rebekah Mannix; William P Meehan; Gregory D Myer Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2017-10-28 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: Jaclyn B Caccese; Kassandra E Johns; Jody L Langdon; George W Shaver; Thomas A Buckley Journal: Res Sports Med Date: 2019-07-09 Impact factor: 4.674
Authors: Jed A Diekfuss; Weihong Yuan; Jonathan A Dudley; Christopher A DiCesare; Matthew B Panzer; Thomas M Talavage; Eric Nauman; Scott Bonnette; Alexis B Slutsky-Ganesh; Joseph Clark; Manish Anand; Mekibib Altaye; James L Leach; Joseph D Lamplot; Marc Galloway; Mathew W Pombo; Kyle E Hammond; Gregory D Myer Journal: Ann Biomed Eng Date: 2021-09-28 Impact factor: 3.934
Authors: Gregory D Myer; Weihong Yuan; Kim D Barber Foss; Staci Thomas; David Smith; James Leach; Adam W Kiefer; Chris Dicesare; Janet Adams; Paul J Gubanich; Katie Kitchen; Daniel K Schneider; Daniel Braswell; Darcy Krueger; Mekibib Altaye Journal: Br J Sports Med Date: 2016-06-15 Impact factor: 13.800