Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30242627›Full record

SynthesisSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2018

Assessing Head/Neck Dynamic Response to Head Perturbation: A Systematic Review.

Enora Le Flao, Matt Brughelli, Patria A Hume, Doug King

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Enora Le FlaoSports Performance Research Institute New Zealand (SPRINZ), Faculty of Health and Environmental Science, Auckland University of Technology, Private Bag 92006, Auckland, 1142, New Zealand. enora.leflao@aut.ac.nz.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0006-0244
Matt BrughelliSports Performance Research Institute New Zealand (SPRINZ), Faculty of Health and Environmental Science, Auckland University of Technology, Private Bag 92006, Auckland, 1142, New Zealand.
Patria A HumeSports Performance Research Institute New Zealand (SPRINZ), Faculty of Health and Environmental Science, Auckland University of Technology, Private Bag 92006, Auckland, 1142, New Zealand.
Doug KingSports Performance Research Institute New Zealand (SPRINZ), Faculty of Health and Environmental Science, Auckland University of Technology, Private Bag 92006, Auckland, 1142, New Zealand.

Funding

Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand SRIF RCRG Neck Strength Project grant 2016
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHead/neck dynamic response to perturbation has been proposed as a risk factor for sports-related concussion.

objectivesThe aim of this systematic review was to compare methodologies utilised to assess head/neck dynamic response to perturbation, report on magnitude, validity and reliability of the response, and to describe modifying factors.

methodsA systematic search of databases resulted in 19 articles that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria.

resultsPerturbation methods for head/neck dynamic response included load dropping, quick release and direct impact. Magnitudes of perturbation energy varied from 0.1 to 11.8 J. Head/neck response was reported as neck muscle latency (18.6-88.0 ms), neck stiffness (147.2-721.9 N/rad, 14-1145.3 Nm/rad) and head acceleration (0.2-3.8g). Reliability was only reported in two studies. Modifying factors for head/neck response included younger and older participants presenting increased responses, females showing better muscular reactivity but similar or increased head kinematics compared with males, and bracing for impact limiting muscular activity and head kinematics. DISCUSSION: Substantial differences in experimental and reporting methodologies limited comparison of results. Methodological factors such as impact magnitude should be considered in future research.

conclusionEach methodology provides valuable information but their validity for anticipated and unanticipated head impacts measured in vivo needs to be addressed. Reports on head/neck response should include measurement of transmitted force, neck muscle latency, head linear and rotational accelerations, and neck stiffness. Modifying factors of anticipation, participants' age, sex, and sport are to be considered for head/neck dynamic response. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42016051057 (last updated on 27 February 2017).

Indexed as

AccelerationAge FactorsAthletic InjuriesBiomechanical PhenomenaBrain ConcussionFemaleHeadHumansMaleNeckNeck MusclesPredictive Value of TestsReproducibility of ResultsRisk FactorsSex Factors

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.