Ready for impact? A validity and feasibility study of instrumented mouthguards (iMGs)

Title
Ready for impact? A validity and feasibility study of instrumented mouthguards (iMGs)
Publication Date
2022-10
Author(s)
Jones, Ben
Tooby, James
Weaving, Dan
Till, Kevin
Owen, Cameron
Begonia, Mark
Stokes, Keith A
Rowson, Steven
Phillips, Gemma
Hendricks, Sharief
Falvey, Eanna Cian
Al-Dawoud, Marwan
Tierney, Gregory
Type of document
Journal Article
Language
en
Entity Type
Publication
Publisher
BMJ Group
Place of publication
United Kingdom
DOI
10.1136/bjsports-2022-105523
UNE publication id
une:1959.11/58135
Abstract

Objectives Assess the validity and feasibility of current instrumented mouthguards (iMGs) and associated systems.

Methods Phase I" four iMG systems (BiocoreFootball 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 falsenegatives (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.

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.

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.

Link
Citation
British Journal of Sports Medicine, 56(20), p. 1171-1179
ISSN
1473-0480
0306-3674
Start page
1171
End page
1179

Files:

NameSizeformatDescriptionLink