Dataset Information

Ranking and Rating Bicycle Helmet Safety Performance in Oblique Impacts Using Eight Different Brain Injury Models.

ABSTRACT: Bicycle helmets are shown to offer protection against head injuries. Rating methods and test standards are used to evaluate different helmet designs and safety performance. Both strain-based injury criteria obtained from finite element brain injury models and metrics derived from global kinematic responses can be used to evaluate helmet safety performance. Little is known about how different injury models or injury metrics would rank and rate different helmets. The objective of this study was to determine how eight brain models and eight metrics based on global kinematics rank and rate a large number of bicycle helmets (n=17) subjected to oblique impacts. The results showed that the ranking and rating are influenced by the choice of model and metric. Kendall's tau varied between 0.50 and 0.95 when the ranking was based on maximum principal strain from brain models. One specific helmet was rated as 2-star when using one brain model but as 4-star by another model. This could cause confusion for consumers rather than inform them of the relative safety performance of a helmet. Therefore, we suggest that the biomechanics community should create a norm or recommendation for future ranking and rating methods.

SUBMITTER: Fahlstedt M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7952345 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Ranking and Rating Bicycle Helmet Safety Performance in Oblique Impacts Using Eight Different Brain Injury Models.

Fahlstedt Madelen M Abayazid Fady F Panzer Matthew B MB Trotta Antonia A Zhao Wei W Ghajari Mazdak M Gilchrist Michael D MD Ji Songbai S Kleiven Svein S Li Xiaogai X Annaidh Aisling Ní AN Halldin Peter P

Annals of biomedical engineering 20210121 3

Bicycle helmets are shown to offer protection against head injuries. Rating methods and test standards are used to evaluate different helmet designs and safety performance. Both strain-based injury criteria obtained from finite element brain injury models and metrics derived from global kinematic responses can be used to evaluate helmet safety performance. Little is known about how different injury models or injury metrics would rank and rate different helmets. The objective of this study was to ...[more]

PMID: 33475893

Similar Datasets

Project description:Cycling accidents are the leading cause of sports-related head injuries in the US. Conventional bicycle helmets typically consist of polycarbonate shell over Expanded Polystyrene (EPS) foam and are tested with drop tests to evaluate a helmet's ability to reduce head kinematics. Within the last decade, novel helmet technologies have been proposed to mitigate brain injuries during bicycle accidents, which necessitates the evaluation of their effectiveness in impact testing as compared to conventional helmets. In this paper, we reviewed the literature to collect and analyze the kinematic data of drop test experiments carried out on helmets with different technologies. In order to provide a fair comparison across different types of tests, we clustered the datasets with respect to their normal impact velocities, impact angular momentum, and the type of neck apparatus. When we analyzed the data based on impact velocity and angular momentum clusters, we found that the bicycle helmets that used rotation damping based technology, namely MIPS, had significantly lower peak rotational acceleration (PRA) and Generalized Acceleration Model for Brain Injury Threshold (GAMBIT) as compared to the conventional EPS liner helmets (p < 0.01). SPIN helmets had a superior performance in PRA compared to conventional helmets (p < 0.05) in the impact angular momentum clustered group, but not in the impact-velocity clustered comparisons. We also analyzed other recently developed helmets that primarily use collapsible structures in their liners, such as WaveCel and Koroyd. In both of the impact velocity and angular momentum groups, helmets based on the WaveCel technology had significantly lower peak linear acceleration (PLA), PRA, and GAMBIT at low impact velocities as compared to the conventional helmets, respectively (p < 0.05). The protective gear with the airbag technology, namely Hövding, also performed significantly better compared to the conventional helmets in the analyzed kinematic-based injury metrics (p < 0.001), possibly due to its advantage in helmet size and stiffness. We also observed that the differences in the kinematic datasets strongly depend on the type of neck apparatus. Our findings highlight the importance and benefits of developing new technologies and impact testing standards for bicycle helmet designs for better prevention of traumatic brain injury (TBI).

Project description:BackgroundThe Delphi technique has steeply grown in popularity in health research as a structured approach to group communication process. Rating and ranking are two different procedures commonly used to quantify participants' opinions in Delphi surveys. We explored the influence of using a rating or ranking approach on item prioritization (main outcome), questionnaire completion time, and evaluation of task difficulty in a Delphi survey aimed at identifying priorities for the organization of primary cardiovascular care.MethodsA randomized controlled parallel group trial was embedded in a three-round online Delphi survey. After an "open" first round, primary care patients, trained patient partners, and primary care clinicians from seven primary care practices were allocated 1:1 to a rating or ranking assessment group for the remainder of the study by stratified permuted block randomization, with strata based on participants' gender and status. Agreement on item prioritization between the experimental groups was measured by calculating Krippendorff's alpha reliability coefficient on the aggregate rank order of items in each group after the final round. Self-reported ease or difficulty with the assessment task was measured with the Single Ease Question.ResultsThirty-six panelists (13 clinic patients, 7 patient partners, 16 clinicians; 60% females) were randomized to the rating (n = 18) or ranking (n = 18) group, with 30 (83%) completing all rounds. Both groups identified the same highest priorities from a set of 41 items, but significant discrepancies were found as early as the seventh top item. There was moderately strong agreement between the priority ordering of top items common to both groups (Krippendorff's alpha = 0.811, 95% CI = 0.669-0.920). A 9-min mean difference to complete the third-round questionnaire in favor of the rating group failed to achieve statistical significance (p = 0.053). Ranking was perceived as more difficult (p < 0.001).ConclusionsA rating or ranking procedure led to modestly similar item prioritization in a Delphi survey, but ranking was more difficult. This study should be replicated with a larger number of participants and with variations in the ranking and rating procedures.Trial registrationNot applicable.

Dataset Information

Ranking and Rating Bicycle Helmet Safety Performance in Oblique Impacts Using Eight Different Brain Injury Models.

Publications

Ranking and Rating Bicycle Helmet Safety Performance in Oblique Impacts Using Eight Different Brain Injury Models.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets