Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35920964›Full record

ArticleAnnals of biomedical engineering2022

Consensus Head Acceleration Measurement Practices (CHAMP): Origins, Methods, Transparency and Disclosure.

Kristy B Arbogast, Jaclyn B Caccese, Thomas A Buckley, Andrew S McIntosh, Kyvory Henderson, Brian D Stemper, Gary Solomon, Steven P Broglio, James R Funk, Jeff R Crandall

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of biomedical engineering, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Head Acceleration Events in Collegiate Rodeo Athletes.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Quantitative video analysis of head acceleration events: a review.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025
    Review
  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

10 authors.

Kristy B ArbogastCenter for Injury Research and Prevention, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, 2716 South St., PA, 19146, Philadelphia, USA. arbogast@chop.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1694-4562
Jaclyn B CacceseThe Ohio State University Chronic Brain Injury Program, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH, USA.
Thomas A BuckleyDepartment of Kinesiology and Applied Physiology, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA.
Andrew S McIntoshMcIntosh Consultancy and Research, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Kyvory HendersonDiversified Technical Systems, Inc., Seal Beach, CA, USA.
Brian D StemperJoint Department of Biomedical Engineering, Medical College of Wisconsin & Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI, USA.
Gary SolomonNational Football League Player Health and Safety, New York, NY, USA.
Steven P BroglioMichigan Concussion Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
James R FunkBiocore LLC, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Jeff R CrandallBiocore LLC, Charlottesville, VA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of head kinematic measurement devices has recently proliferated owing to technology advances that make such measurement more feasible. In parallel, demand to understand the biomechanics of head impacts and injury in sports and the military has increased as the burden of such loading on the brain has received focused attention. As a result, the field has matured to the point of needing methodological guidelines to improve the rigor and consistency of research and reduce the risk of scientific bias. To this end, a diverse group of scientists undertook a comprehensive effort to define current best practices in head kinematic measurement, culminating in a series of manuscripts outlining consensus methodologies and companion summary statements. Summary statements were discussed, revised, and voted upon at the Consensus Head Acceleration Measurement Practices (CHAMP) Conference in March 2022. This manuscript summarizes the motivation and methods of the consensus process and introduces recommended reporting checklists to be used to increase transparency and rigor of future experimental design and publication of work in this field. The checklists provide an accessible means for researchers to apply the best practices summarized in the companion manuscripts when reporting studies utilizing head kinematic measurement in sport and military settings.

Indexed as

Brain ConcussionAccelerationBiomechanical PhenomenaConsensusConsensus Statements as TopicDisclosureHeadHead Protective DevicesHumansBest practicesHead kinematicsSensorsSport-related concussionSport safety

Identifiers

PMID35920964
PMCPMC9652170

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.