ArticleBMJ open sport & exercise medicine2018
Comparison of branded rugby headguards on their effectiveness in reducing impact on the head.
Article in BMJ open sport & exercise medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing the Efficacy of GameBreaker Softshell Headgear in Reducing Peak Head Kinematics.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Article
- Computational Modelling of Protected and Unprotected Head Impacts in Rugby.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
- Potential of Soft-Shelled Rugby Headgear to Lower Regional Brain Strain Metrics During Standard Drop Tests.Sports medicine - open · 2024Article
- Drop Test Kinematics Using Varied Impact Surfaces and Head/Neck Configurations for Rugby Headgear Testing.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2022Article
- Potential of Soft-Shelled Rugby Headgear to Reduce Linear Impact Accelerations.Journal of healthcare engineering · 2021Article
- Athletes' and Coaches' Attitudes Toward Protective Headgear as Concussion and Head Injury Prevention: A Scoping Review.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2021Article
- 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo compare the available brands of rugby headguards and evaluate their impact attenuation properties at various locations on the cranium, with regard to concussion prevention.
methodsSeven different branded headguards were fitted onto a rigid headform and drop-tested in three different positions. An accelerometer measured the linear acceleration the headform experienced on impact with the ground. Each test involved dropping the headform from a height that generated 103.8 g on average when bare, which is the closest acceleration to the upper limit of the concussion threshold of 100 g. A mean peak acceleration for each drop position was calculated and compared with the bare baseline measurement.
resultsEach headguard demonstrated a significant decrease in the mean peak acceleration from the baseline value (all p≤0.01). Overall the Canterbury Ventilator was the most effective headguard, decreasing the impact force on average by 47%. The least effective was the XBlades Elite headguard, averaging a force reduction of 27%. In five of the seven headguards, the right side of the headwear was the most effective at reducing impact force.
conclusionOverall, the results indicate that it would be beneficial to wear a headguard during rugby in order to reduce the impact forces involved in head collisions. There was also a clear difference in performance between the tested brands, establishing the Canterbury headguard as the most effective. However, only one model of headguard from each brand was tested, so further research evaluating all other models should be considered.
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.