Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33475893›Full record

ArticleAnnals of biomedical engineering2021

Ranking and Rating Bicycle Helmet Safety Performance in Oblique Impacts Using Eight Different Brain Injury Models.

Madelen Fahlstedt, Fady Abayazid, Matthew B Panzer, Antonia Trotta, Wei Zhao, Mazdak Ghajari, Michael D Gilchrist, Songbai Ji, Svein Kleiven, Xiaogai Li and 2 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of biomedical engineering, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
11.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

39 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 86 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. An MRI-derived head-neck finite element model.Biomechanics and modeling in mechanobiology · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

12 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.

Madelen FahlstedtDivision of Neuronic Engineering, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Hälsovägen 11C, 141 52, Huddinge, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0980-4051
Fady AbayazidDyson School of Design Engineering, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Matthew B PanzerDepartment of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Antonia TrottaSchool of Mechanical & Materials Engineering, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland.
Wei ZhaoDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA, 01605, USA.
Mazdak GhajariDyson School of Design Engineering, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Michael D GilchristSchool of Mechanical & Materials Engineering, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland.
Songbai JiDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA, 01605, USA.
Svein KleivenDivision of Neuronic Engineering, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Hälsovägen 11C, 141 52, Huddinge, Sweden.
Xiaogai LiDivision of Neuronic Engineering, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Hälsovägen 11C, 141 52, Huddinge, Sweden.
Aisling Ní AnnaidhSchool of Mechanical & Materials Engineering, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland.
Peter HalldinDivision of Neuronic Engineering, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Hälsovägen 11C, 141 52, Huddinge, Sweden. peter.halldin@mipsprotection.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4798-4604
KTH Royal Institute of Technology · SEUniversity College Dublin · IEDyson (United Kingdom) · GBWorcester Polytechnic Institute · USUniversity of Virginia · US

Funding

H2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions 642662H2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions () 642662NIH HHS NS092853
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bicycle helmets are shown to offer protection against head injuries. Rating methods and test standards are used to evaluate different helmet designs and safety performance. Both strain-based injury criteria obtained from finite element brain injury models and metrics derived from global kinematic responses can be used to evaluate helmet safety performance. Little is known about how different injury models or injury metrics would rank and rate different helmets. The objective of this study was to determine how eight brain models and eight metrics based on global kinematics rank and rate a large number of bicycle helmets (n=17) subjected to oblique impacts. The results showed that the ranking and rating are influenced by the choice of model and metric. Kendall's tau varied between 0.50 and 0.95 when the ranking was based on maximum principal strain from brain models. One specific helmet was rated as 2-star when using one brain model but as 4-star by another model. This could cause confusion for consumers rather than inform them of the relative safety performance of a helmet. Therefore, we suggest that the biomechanics community should create a norm or recommendation for future ranking and rating methods.

Indexed as

BicyclingModels, BiologicalAccidentsBiomechanical PhenomenaBrainBrain InjuriesEquipment DesignHead Protective DevicesHumansBicycle helmetBrain injury criteriaConcussionFinite element modelsOblique impact testsTest methods

Identifiers

PMID33475893
PMCPMC7952345
OpenAlexW3123598096

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.