Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
Thehttps:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

NIH NLM Logo
Log inShow account info
Access keysNCBI HomepageMyNCBI HomepageMain ContentMain Navigation
pubmed logo
Advanced Clipboard
User Guide

Full text links

HighWire full text link HighWire
Full text links

Actions

Meta-Analysis
.2017 Oct;51(20):1473-1482.
doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2015-095645. Epub 2016 Jun 1.

Current state of concussion prevention strategies: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective, controlled studies

Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Current state of concussion prevention strategies: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective, controlled studies

Daniel K Schneider et al. Br J Sports Med.2017 Oct.

Abstract

Objective: The aim of the current review was to systematically identify, evaluate and synthesise trials that examine concussion prevention via equipment, educational programmes and training programmes.

Data sources: PubMed and EBSCO host (CINAHL, MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus).

Eligibility criteria for selecting studies: The electronic databases PubMed and EBSCO were searched using the phrases:concussion prevention equipment,concussion prevention training andconcussion prevention education. Included studies utilised a prospective study design to evaluate the preventative effect of: (1) equipment, (2) training or (3) educational programmes on the incidence of concussions in comparison to a control group.

Data extraction: Demographic data and intervention methods were recorded. Intervention and control group concussion rates and superficial head injury rates were extracted and combined using random-effects relative risk meta-analysis.

Results: 14 studies evaluated interventions of novel protective equipment. One prospective investigation evaluated an educational programme. The relative risk of concussion for participants enrolled in the interventional arms of trials was not significantly different from that in standard practice arms (RR=0.78, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.11, χ2=1.8, p=0.17; I2=85.3%, 95% CI 71.5% to 90.8%). The relative risk of concussion for participants wearing protective equipment (ie, headgear, full face shields) relative to their counterparts wearing standard or no equipment, calculated from seven available reports, showed no effect of intervention (RR=0.82, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.20, χ2=1.06, p=0.30; I2=86.7%, 95% CI 73.3% to 91.8%). The relative risk of superficial head injury for participants wearing protective equipment relative to their counterparts, calculated from three reports, showed a significant risk reduction (RR=0.41, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.56, χ2=34.13, p<0.0001; I2=53.1%, 95% CI 0% to 85.2%).

Conclusions: Prospective controlled studies indicate that certain protective equipment may prevent superficial head injury, but these items are suboptimal for concussion prevention in sport.

Keywords: Brain; Concussion; Helmet; Meta-analysis.

Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources

Full text links
HighWire full text link HighWire
Cite
Send To

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSHPMCBookshelfDisclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.


[8]ページ先頭

©2009-2026 Movatter.jp