ArticleAnnals of biomedical engineering2022
Consensus Head Acceleration Measurement Practices (CHAMP): Laboratory Validation of Wearable Head Kinematic Devices.
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 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed.
- Estimating Linear and Rotational Head Kinematics in Ice Hockey from a Single Helmet-Mounted IMU Using Vector Autoregressive Models.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Article
- Assessing Motion Fidelity During Closed-Head Rotational Acceleration Traumatic Brain Injury in Pigs.Research square · 2026Article
- Comparison of Six Data Cleaning Methods for Determining Repetitive Head Impact Exposure in Youth Tackle Football.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Article
- Helmet-Head Decoupling in Ice Hockey Impacts: An In-lab Exploratory Study Using Autoregressive Modeling of Acceleration Data Measured from a Helmet-Mounted Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU).Annals of biomedical engineering · 2025Article
- Detecting and Salvaging Head Impacts with Decoupling Artifacts from Instrumented Mouthguards.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2025Article
- Methods for Capturing and Quantifying Contact Events in Collision Sports.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Distribution of position-specific head impact severities among professional and Division I collegiate American football athletes during games.BMJ open sport & exercise medicine · 2025Article
- Quantitative video analysis of head acceleration events: a review.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Review
- Accuracy of Instrumented Mouthguards During Direct Jaw Impacts Seen in Boxing.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2024Article
- On-field Head Acceleration Exposure Measurements Using Instrumented Mouthguards: Multi-stage Screening to Optimize Data Quality.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2024Article
- Biofidelity and Limitations of Instrumented Mouthguard Systems for Assessment of Rigid Body Head Kinematics.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2024Article
- On-Field Evaluation of Mouthpiece-and-Helmet-Mounted Sensor Data from Head Kinematics in Football.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2024Article
- When to Pull the Trigger: Conceptual Considerations for Approximating Head Acceleration Events Using Instrumented Mouthguards.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2024Review
- Head Exposure to Acceleration Database in Sport (HEADSport): a kinematic signal processing method to enable instrumented mouthguard (iMG) field-based inter-study comparisons.BMJ open sport & exercise medicine · 2024Article
- An Instrumented Mouthguard for Real-Time Measurement of Head Kinematics under a Large Range of Sport Specific Accelerations.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Measuring Head Acceleration Like a CHAMP.Journal of athletic training · 2023Article
- On-Field Deployment and Validation for Wearable Devices.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2022Review
- Consensus Head Acceleration Measurement Practices (CHAMP): Study Design and Statistical Analysis.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Wearable devices are increasingly used to measure real-world head impacts and study brain injury mechanisms. These devices must undergo validation testing to ensure they provide reliable and accurate information for head impact sensing, and controlled laboratory testing should be the first step of validation. Past validation studies have applied varying methodologies, and some devices have been deployed for on-field use without validation. This paper presents best practices recommendations for validating wearable head kinematic devices in the laboratory, with the goal of standardizing validation test methods and data reporting. Key considerations, recommended approaches, and specific considerations were developed for four main aspects of laboratory validation, including surrogate selection, test conditions, data collection, and data analysis. Recommendations were generated by a group with expertise in head kinematic sensing and laboratory validation methods and reviewed by a larger group to achieve consensus on best practices. We recommend that these best practices are followed by manufacturers, users, and reviewers to conduct and/or review laboratory validation of wearable devices, which is a minimum initial step prior to on-field validation and deployment. We anticipate that the best practices recommendations will lead to more rigorous validation of wearable head kinematic devices and higher accuracy in head impact data, which can subsequently advance brain injury research and management.
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.