| Popis: |
Objectives Assess the validity and feasibility of current instrumented mouthguards (iMGs) and associated systems.\ud \ud Methods Phase I; four iMG systems (Biocore-Football Research Inc (FRI), HitIQ, ORB, Prevent) were compared against dummy headform laboratory criterion standards (25, 50, 75, 100 g). Phase II; four iMG systems were evaluated for on-field validity of iMG-triggered events against video-verification to determine true-positives, false-positives and false-negatives (20±9 player matches per iMG). Phase III; four iMG systems were evaluated by 18 rugby players, for perceptions of fit, comfort and function. Phase IV; three iMG systems (Biocore-FRI, HitIQ, Prevent) were evaluated for practical feasibility (System Usability Scale (SUS)) by four practitioners.\ud \ud Results Phase I; total concordance correlation coefficients were 0.986, 0.965, 0.525 and 0.984 for Biocore-FRI, HitIQ, ORB and Prevent. Phase II; different on-field kinematics were observed between iMGs. Positive predictive values were 0.98, 0.90, 0.53 and 0.94 for Biocore-FRI, HitIQ, ORB and Prevent. Sensitivity values were 0.51, 0.40, 0.71 and 0.75 for Biocore-FRI, HitIQ, ORB and Prevent. Phase III; player perceptions of fit, comfort and function were 77%, 6/10, 55% for Biocore-FRI, 88%, 8/10, 61% for HitIQ, 65%, 5/10, 43% for ORB and 85%, 8/10, 67% for Prevent. Phase IV; SUS (preparation-management) was 51.3–50.6/100, 71.3–78.8/100 and 83.8–80.0/100 for Biocore-FRI, HitIQ and Prevent.\ud \ud Conclusion This study shows differences between current iMG systems exist. Sporting organisations can use these findings when evaluating which iMG system is most appropriate to monitor head acceleration events in athletes, supporting player welfare initiatives related to concussion and head acceleration exposure. |
