ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Trunk Impact Conditions in Mountain Biking: Biomechanical Insights for Back Protector Evaluation.
Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMountain biking is increasingly popular but carries a large risk of severe trunk and spinal injuries. However, realistic crash scenarios for back protector design remain poorly characterized. This study aimed to define trunk impact conditions during mountain biking crashes.
methodsA multi-body model for mountain bike accident reconstruction was developed, and its kinematics were validated against real-world crash video footage. The model was then used to assess the influence of initial conditions (speed, slope, crash cause, etc.) on trunk impact kinematics (velocities, forces, pseudo-energy) and spinal loading indicators during forward crashes.
resultsAcross 288 simulated crashes, the median normal trunk impact velocity (4.61 m/s) and pseudo-energy (48 J) aligned with current test standards, while substantial tangential (5.97 m/s) and rotational (4.90 rad/s) components were also observed. Three main impact types emerged: head-thorax impacts (43.5%), involving a head impact followed by chest impact (Vn: 5.42 m/s, Emax: 59 J); tumbling (25.1%), featuring a head impact followed by back impact (Vn: 3.98 m/s, Emax: 57 J); and overflip-back impacts (20.7%), involving direct back contact (Vn: 3.35 m/s, Emax: 47 J).
conclusionThis study's results define trunk impact conditions during MTB crashes, informing on realistic boundary conditions for testing and designing back protectors.
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.