ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2025
An evaluation of the performance of medical helmets used in healthcare for the protection of vulnerable patients.
Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Medical helmets (MHs) are used by individuals with an increased vulnerability to falls and are essentially unregulated in the UK; therefore, their impact performance is unproven. This study investigated the performance of a selection of medical helmets available to clinicians using general techniques to determine their protective performance against impacts. Additionally, clinicians have stated that medical helmets need to consider focal vulnerabilities to impact (often a postsurgical site of a decompressive craniectomy); therefore, novel techniques were specifically employed for measuring the protection of a focal site. Materials and Methods: A freefall drop test methodology was used to assess six medical helmets (MH1-6) and two sports helmets (SH1 and SH2). The headform was instrumented with six degrees of freedom instrumentation to quantify global kinematics metrics related to injury risk (peak linear acceleration (PLA), peak angular velocity (PAV), peak angular acceleration (PAA), head injury criterion (HIC), and brain injury criterion (BrIC)), and a thin-film contact pressure measurement system was used to quantify the contact area (above a threshold of 560 kPa) focal to the impact. Due to the advanced nature of these measurements, a novel biofidelic headform was used to more accurately represent local deformation. Additionally, impact performance was plotted against two proxy measures of comfort. Results: The difference in performance between the worst and best helmets ranged from 90% to 2844%, showing a substantial variation. HIC, PLA, and PAA showed the largest range, whereas PAV showed the smallest range. Nonetheless, there was good agreement between each kinematic metric regarding the rank order of the medical helmets. The contact pressure was a consistent outlier. Each metric included at least one injury threshold, which MH4 and MH6 consistently exceeded (15/18 occasions). Discussion: MH2 and MH3 were the only medical helmets comparable to sports helmets in terms of both comfort and performance. MH1 showed excellent performance metrics but exhibited possible discomfort, while MH4 was above average across both measurement categories. MH4 and MH6 were significantly deficient compared to the sample of helmets. These results highlight the need for standardisation.
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.