ArticleAnnals of biomedical engineering2026
Can Industrial Helmets Protect the Head in Simulated Falls and Trips?
Article in Annals of biomedical engineering, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeFalls and trips are a leading cause of work-related traumatic brain injuries, yet the protective performance of industrial helmets in such scenarios remains poorly understood. This study assesses the effectiveness of different industrial helmet designs under impact conditions representative of falls and trips.
methodsSix industrial helmets with different designs were tested. Four were suspension-based models compliant with EN 397, including two versions of the same model, one with and one without the rotation reduction system, MIPS. Two additional helmets were foam-based, meeting both EN 397 and EN 12492 standards. Helmets were dropped onto angled anvils at different speeds and impact locations to simulate trips and falls. Tests were conducted on two surface types: P80 abrasive papers and roof shingles. The new EN 17950 headform was used.
resultsHelmet performance varied by design and impact condition. Foam-based helmets offered better protection against impacts than suspension-based helmets, which showed greater sensitivity to impact location. Front impacts near the rim at 5.5 m/s produced the highest severity, with peak linear accelerations exceeding 700 g for some suspension-based helmets, followed by rear impacts. In the single helmet model evaluated, MIPS reduced peak rotational acceleration. Finally, the influence of the surface type on peak head kinematics was borderline significant, with P80 papers producing larger peak kinematics.
conclusionHelmet design has a key role in protection against trip and fall impacts, with foam-based helmets providing added benefits. These findings highlight the need for improvements in helmet safety standards and helmet designs to better prevent work-related brain injuries.
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.