Mohammadreza Tabary1, Sadegh Ahmadi2, Mohammad Hosein Amirzade-Iranaq3, Maryam Shojaei1, Masoud Sohrabi Asl1, Zahra Ghodsi1, Amir Azarhomayoun1, Alireza Ansari-Moghaddam4, Rasha Atlasi5, Farnaz Araghi6, Mehdi Shafieian7, Seyed Taghi Heydari8, Mahdi Sharif-Alhoseini1, Gerard O'Reilly9, Vafa Rahimi-Movaghar10. 1. Sina Trauma and Surgery Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 2. School of Mechanical Engineering, University of Tehran, Iran. 3. Universal Network of Interdisciplinary Research in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (UNIROMS), Universal Scientific Education and Research Network (USERN), Tehran, Iran; International Otorhinolaryngology Research Association (IORA), Universal Scientific Education and Research Network (USERN), Tehran, Iran. 4. Health Promotion Research Center, Zahedan University of Medical Sciences, Zahedan, Iran. 5. EMRI, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 6. Skin Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Iran. 7. The Department of Biomedical Engineering, Amirkabir University of Technology (Tehran Polytechnic), Tehran, Iran. 8. Health Policy Research Center, Institute of Health, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran. 9. Emergency and Trauma Centre, Alfred Health, Melbourne, Australia; School of Public Health & Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia; National Trauma and Research Institute, Alfred Health, Melbourne, Australia. 10. Sina Trauma and Surgery Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran; Brain and Spinal Cord Injury Research Center, Neuroscience Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran; Department of Neurosurgery, Shariati Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran; Universal Scientific Education and Research Network (USERN), Tehran, Iran; Institute of Biochemistry and Biophysics, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran; University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. Electronic address: V_rahimi@sina.tums.ac.ir.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Protective helmets may reduce the risk of death and head injury in motorcycle collisions. However, there remains a large gap in knowledge regarding the effectiveness of different types of helmets in preventing injuries. OBJECTIVE: To explore and evaluate the effectiveness of different types of motorcycle helmets; that is the association between different helmet types and the incidence and severity of head, neck, and facial injuries among motorcyclists. Also, to explore the effect of different helmet types on riders. METHODS: A systematic search of different scientific databases was conducted from 1965 to April 2019. A scoping review was performed on the included articles. Eligible articles were included regarding defined criteria. Study characteristics, helmet types, fixation status, retention system, the prevention of injury or reduction of its severity were extracted. RESULTS: A total of 137 studies were included. There was very limited evidence for the better protection of full-face helmets from head and facial injury compared to open-face and half-coverage helmets. There was however scarce evidence for the superiority of a certain helmet type over others in terms of protection from neck injury. The retention system and the fixation status of helmets were two important factors affecting the risk of head and brain injury in motorcyclists. Helmets could also affect and limit the riders in terms of vision, hearing, and ventilation. Multiple solutions have been discussed to mitigate these effects. CONCLUSION: Full-face helmets may protect head and face in motorcycle riders more than open-face and half-coverage helmets, but there is not enough evidence for better neck protection among these three helmet types. Helmets can affect the rider's vision, hearing, and ventilation. When designing a helmet, all of these factors should be taken into account.
BACKGROUND: Protective helmets may reduce the risk of death and head injury in motorcycle collisions. However, there remains a large gap in knowledge regarding the effectiveness of different types of helmets in preventing injuries. OBJECTIVE: To explore and evaluate the effectiveness of different types of motorcycle helmets; that is the association between different helmet types and the incidence and severity of head, neck, and facial injuries among motorcyclists. Also, to explore the effect of different helmet types on riders. METHODS: A systematic search of different scientific databases was conducted from 1965 to April 2019. A scoping review was performed on the included articles. Eligible articles were included regarding defined criteria. Study characteristics, helmet types, fixation status, retention system, the prevention of injury or reduction of its severity were extracted. RESULTS: A total of 137 studies were included. There was very limited evidence for the better protection of full-face helmets from head and facial injury compared to open-face and half-coverage helmets. There was however scarce evidence for the superiority of a certain helmet type over others in terms of protection from neck injury. The retention system and the fixation status of helmets were two important factors affecting the risk of head and brain injury in motorcyclists. Helmets could also affect and limit the riders in terms of vision, hearing, and ventilation. Multiple solutions have been discussed to mitigate these effects. CONCLUSION: Full-face helmets may protect head and face in motorcycle riders more than open-face and half-coverage helmets, but there is not enough evidence for better neck protection among these three helmet types. Helmets can affect the rider's vision, hearing, and ventilation. When designing a helmet, all of these factors should be taken into account.