Trial reportJournal of athletic training
Cervical spine motion during football equipment-removal protocols: a challenge to the all-or-nothing endeavor.
Trial report in Journal of athletic training. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Spinal trauma.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextThe National Athletic Trainers' Association position statement on acute management of the cervical spine-injured athlete recommended the all-or-nothing endeavor, which involves removing or not removing both helmet and shoulder pads, from equipment-laden American football and ice hockey athletes. However, in supporting research, investigators have not considered alternative protocols.
objectiveTo measure cervical spine movement (head relative to sternum) produced when certified athletic trainers (ATs) use the all-or-nothing endeavor and to compare these findings with the movement produced using an alternative pack-and-fill protocol, which involves packing the area under and around the cervical neck and head with rolled towels.
designCrossover study.
settingMovement analysis laboratory. PATIENTS OR OTHER
participantsEight male collegiate football players (age = 21.4 ± 1.4 years; height = 1.87 ± 0.02 m; mass = 103.6 ± 12.5 kg). INTERVENTION(S): Four ATs removed equipment under 4 conditions: removal of helmet only followed by placing the head on the ground (H), removal of the helmet only followed by pack-and-fill (HP), removal of the helmet and shoulder pads followed by placing the head on the ground (HS), and removal of the helmet and shoulder pads followed by pack-and-fill (HSP). Motion capture was used to track the movement of the head with respect to the sternum during equipment removal. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): We measured head movement relative to sternum movement (translations and rotations). We used 4 × 4 analyses of variance with repeated measures to compare discrete motion variables (changes in position and total excursions) among protocols and ATs.
resultsProtocol HP resulted in a 0.1 ± 0.6 cm rise in head position compared with a 1.4 ± 0.3 cm drop with protocol HS (P < .001). Protocol HP produced 4.9° less total angular excursion (P < .001) and 2.1 cm less total vertical excursion (P < .001) than protocol HS.
conclusionsThe pack-and-fill protocol was more effective than shoulder pad removal in minimizing cervical spine movement throughout the equipment-removal process. This study provides evidence for including the pack-and-fill protocol in future treatment recommendations when helmet removal is necessary for on-field care.
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.