Jones Ben, Tooby James, Weaving Dan, Till Kevin, Owen Cameron, Begonia Mark, Stokes Keith A, Rowson Steven, Phillips Gemma, Hendricks Sharief, Falvey Éanna Cian, Al-Dawoud Marwan, Tierney Gregory
Carnegie Applied Rugby Research (CARR) Centre, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK
England Performance Unit, Rugby Football League, Manchester, UK.
Br J Sports Med. 2022 Jul 25. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2022-105523.
Assess the validity and feasibility of current instrumented mouthguards (iMGs) and associated systems.
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 ). 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 , and . Phase IV; three iMG systems (Biocore-FRI, HitIQ, Prevent) were evaluated for practical feasibility (System Usability Scale (SUS)) by four practitioners.
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 , and 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.
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.
评估当前的仪器化口腔防护器（iMGs）及相关系统的有效性和可行性。
第一阶段；将四种iMG系统（Biocore - 足球研究公司（FRI）、HitIQ、ORB、Prevent）与假人头模型实验室标准（25、50、75、100）进行比较。第二阶段；针对iMG触发事件的现场有效性，通过视频验证对四种iMG系统进行评估，以确定真阳性、假阳性和假阴性（每种iMG进行20±9场球员比赛）。第三阶段；18名橄榄球运动员对四种iMG系统的[具体内容缺失]、[具体内容缺失]和[具体内容缺失]进行评价。第四阶段；四名从业者对三种iMG系统（Biocore - FRI、HitIQ、Prevent）的实际可行性（系统可用性量表（SUS））进行评估。
第一阶段；Biocore - FRI、HitIQ、ORB和Prevent的总一致性相关系数分别为0.986、0.965、0.525和0.984。第二阶段；不同iMG之间观察到不同的现场运动学情况。Biocore - FRI、HitIQ、ORB和Prevent的阳性预测值分别为0.98、0.90、0.53和0.94。Biocore - FRI、HitIQ、ORB和Prevent的敏感性值分别为0.51、0.40、0.71和0.75。第三阶段；Biocore - FRI的球员对[具体内容缺失]、[具体内容缺失]和[具体内容缺失]的评价分别为77%、6/10、55%；HitIQ分别为88%、8/10、61%；ORB分别为65%、5/10、43%；Prevent分别为85%、8/10和67%。第四阶段；Biocore - FRI、HitIQ和Prevent的SUS（准备 - 管理）分别为51.3 - 50.6/100、71.3 - 78.8/100和83.8 - 80.0/100。
本研究表明当前的iMG系统之间存在差异。体育组织在评估哪种iMG系统最适合监测运动员头部加速度事件时可利用这些发现，以支持与脑震荡和头部加速度暴露相关球员福利倡议。
