Cited by 61Traumatic Brain Injury ResearchSports injuries and preventionAutomotive and Human Injury Biomechanics

Practice type effects on head impact in collegiate football

Open access
Reynolds, Bryson B., Patrie, James, Henry, Erich J., Goodkin, Howard P., Broshek, Donna K., Wintermark, Max, Druzgal, T. Jason·2016·Journal of neurosurgery

Abstract

UNLABELLED: OBJECT IVE: This study directly compares the number and severity of subconcussive head impacts sustained during helmet-only practices, shell practices, full-pad practices, and competitive games in a National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I-A football team. The goal of the study was to determine whether subconcussive head impact in collegiate athletes varies with practice type, which is currently unregulated by the NCAA. METHODS: Over an entire season, a cohort of 20 collegiate football players wore impact-sensing mastoid patches that measured the linear and rotational acceleration of all head impacts during a total of 890 athletic exposures. Data were analyzed to compare the number of head impacts, head impact burden, and average impact severity during helmet-only, shell, and full-pad practices, and games. RESULTS: Helmet-only, shell, and full-pad practices and games all significantly differed from each other (p ≤ 0.05) in the mean number of impacts for each event, with the number of impacts being greatest for games, then full-pad practices, then shell practices, and then helmet-only practices. The cumulative distributions for both linear and rotational acceleration differed between all event types (p < 0.01), with the acceleration distribution being similarly greatest for games, then full-pad practices, then shell practices, and then helmet-only practices. For both linear and rotational acceleration, helmet-only practices had a lower average impact severity when compared with other event types (p < 0.001). However, the average impact severity did not differ between any comparisons of shell and full-pad practices, and games. CONCLUSIONS: Helmet-only, shell, and full-pad practices, and games result in distinct head impact profiles per event, with each succeeding event type receiving more impacts than the one before. Both the number of head impacts and cumulative impact burden during practice are categorically less than in games. In practice events, the number and cumulative burden of head impacts per event increases with the amount of equipment worn. The average severity of individual impacts is relatively consistent across event types, with the exception of helmet-only practices. The number of hits experienced during each event type is the main driver of event type differences in impact burden per athletic exposure, rather than the average severity of impacts that occur during the event. These findings suggest that regulation of practice equipment could be a fair and effective way to substantially reduce subconcussive head impact in thousands of collegiate football players.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3171/2015.5.jns15573

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Reynolds, B. B., Patrie, J., Henry, E. J., Goodkin, H. P., Broshek, D. K., Wintermark, M., & Druzgal, T. J.
Affiliations
  • Department of Radiology and Medical Imaging;
  • Public Health Sciences;
  • Department of Neurology; and
  • University of Virginia (US)
  • Stanford Medicine (US)
Venue
Journal of neurosurgery
Published
2016-02
Volume
124
Issue
2
Pages
501-510
ISSN
  • 0022-3085 (ISSN-L)
  • 1933-0693
OpenAlex
W2096501942
Cited by
61
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 9 · 2014: 1
FWCI
7.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of neurosurgery (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of General Medical Sciences (2 T32 GM 8328-21, T32GM008328)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Traumatic Brain Injury Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Sports injuries and prevention
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Automotive and Human Injury Biomechanics
Keywords
subconcussive impacts, college football, practice type, athletic exposure, concussion prevention
MeSH terms
Acceleration, Biomechanical Phenomena, Body Burden, Brain Concussion, Brain Injuries, Football, Craniocerebral Trauma, Head Protective Devices, Humans, Male, Rotation, Cohort Studies, Biosensing Techniques, Injury Severity Score, Kaplan-Meier Estimate, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review