ArticleClinical interventions in aging2008
Effect of multiple impacts on protective properties of external hip protectors.
Article in Clinical interventions in aging, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Test systems for the biomechanical evaluation of hip protectors: a systematic review.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2020Pooled it
- Impact attenuation provided by older adult protective headwear products during simulated fall-related head impacts.Journal of rehabilitation and assistive technologies engineeringArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A variety of external hip protectors are available on the market but no standards for their performance exist and it is unknown if their properties change after repeated fall impacts. The purpose of this study was to determine if protective properties change in different types of new (unused) hip protectors after repeated, simulated falls. Five hip protector brands were chosen to represent different products available on the market and the two mechanisms employed in reducing the force of an impact (shunting or absorbing). Ten pairs of each type (20 pads for each brand) were tested using a 1.8-m Instron Dynatup 9250 HV vertical impact testing tower. The impact testing system was specifically designed for this study by creating a simulated trochanter to provide more accurately a impact area similar to that of a real hip bone. The hip protectors were impacted once a day for 3 consecutive days. Repeated impacts demonstrated the pads' decreased ability to either absorb or shunt force in all types of hip protectors. However, the mean forces were still in the protective range (force below fracture threshold of 3100 N) for 3 of the 5 brands tested after 3 impacts. The protective properties of external hip protectors do degrade after repeated impacts. The degree of degradation differs from brand to brand. Regardless of type, most pads were still able to bring the force of impact below the fracture threshold of 3100 N. Future studies need to address the issue of durability of different types/brands of hip protectors after repeated laundering and fall impacts to determine when should they be replaced. Additionally, a national or international standard needs to be developed against which the performance of different brands of hip protectors can be compared.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.