ArticleAnnals of biomedical engineering2023
Effectiveness of Wearable Protection Equipment for Seated Pedestrians.
Article in Annals of biomedical engineering, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of Wearable Protection Equipment for Seated Pedestrians.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study used finite element models to investigate the efficacy of seated pedestrian protection equipment in vehicle impacts. The selected safety equipment, a lap belt, an airbag vest, and a bicycle helmet, were chosen to mitigate the underlying biomechanical causes of seated pedestrian injuries reported in the literature. The impact conditions were based on the three most dangerous impact scenarios from a previous seated pedestrian impact study. Serious injury (AIS 3+) risks were compared with and without protective equipment. A 50th percentile male occupant model and two generic vehicle models, the family car (FCR) and sports utility vehicle (SUV), were used to simulate vehicle collisions. Three impact conditions were run with every combination of protective equipment (n = 24). The helmet reduced head and brain injury risks from the vehicle-head and ground-head contacts. The airbag reduced the head injury risk in the FCR vehicle-head contact but increased the brain injury risks in the SUV impacts from increased whiplash. The lap belt increased head injury risks for both the FCR and the SUV impacts because it created a stronger FCR vehicle-head contact and SUV ground-head contact. When the belt and airbag were used together the head injury risks dramatically decreased because the pedestrian body impacted the ground arm or leg first and slowly rolled onto the ground which resulted in softer ground-head contacts and in two instances, no ground-head contact. Only the helmet proved effective in all impact conditions. Future testing must be completed before recommending the belt or airbag for seated pedestrians.
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.