Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40646320›Full record

ArticleAnnals of biomedical engineering2025

Assessing Field Hockey Face Mask Performance.

Natasha Bialecki, Rory England, Jon Farmer, Sean Mitchell, Ellie Rayer, Paul Sherratt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of biomedical engineering, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors.

Natasha BialeckiWolfson School of Mechanical, Electrical and Manufacturing Engineering, Loughborough University, Loughborough, United Kingdom. n.bialecki@lboro.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0005-7828-7595
Rory EnglandWolfson School of Mechanical, Electrical and Manufacturing Engineering, Loughborough University, Loughborough, United Kingdom.
Jon FarmerWolfson School of Mechanical, Electrical and Manufacturing Engineering, Loughborough University, Loughborough, United Kingdom.
Sean MitchellWolfson School of Mechanical, Electrical and Manufacturing Engineering, Loughborough University, Loughborough, United Kingdom.
Ellie RayerWolfson School of Mechanical, Electrical and Manufacturing Engineering, Loughborough University, Loughborough, United Kingdom.
Paul SherrattWolfson School of Mechanical, Electrical and Manufacturing Engineering, Loughborough University, Loughborough, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe purpose of this study was to investigate the protective performance differences of commercially available field hockey face masks whilst proposing and evaluating a methodology using commonly available equipment suitable for use as a dynamic performance test standard.

methodsField hockey balls were propelled at realistic and repeatable speeds (26.8 ± 0.25 ms

resultsQualitative and quantitative laboratory-based measures showed that field hockey mask performance varies with speed, temperature, and impact location. Testing showed that some commercially available masks perform better than others, with key weaknesses including mechanical failure and facial contact.

conclusionsThe potential for some masks to fail catastrophically, and others to provide a wide range of protection, has been demonstrated and reported to governing bodies and industry. Limitations of the equipment and methods utilised have been identified as the impetus for further work. Nonetheless, the current approach provides a testing methodology for the field hockey PPE industry.

Indexed as

Head Protective DevicesHockeyMasksHumansFace maskField hockeyHead injuryImpact testingPenalty corner

Identifiers

PMID40646320
PMCPMC12457451

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.