New conclusive data on Neck Braces

Old news, already posted, look down the page...

ns503 wrote:

Old news, already posted, look down the page...

Mods can delete if they'd like. I wasn't aware it had already been shared, but IMO, if there were a topic worth sharing repeatedly, it would be that of safety gear and proper equipment. Just my 2 cents

I didnt See in the article anywhere mentioning the percentage of riders who wear a neck brace vs ones who dont, but here’s something to think about. Many more people ride without braces. So whats to say the number of injuries (When a neck brace is warn) would not go up if the number of riders wearing neck braces went up? You need to look at the total percentage of riders wearing neck braces compared to the percentage of the injuries with and without neck braces.

Numbers for argument sake. 265 total Critical Cervical Spine Injuries. 90.5% without a brace. 9.5% with a brace.

If only 10% of riders wear a neck brace, then this study has to be deemed inconclusive.

Now lets say 10% is the amount of riders wearing a neck brace. There were 5 recorded deaths. 4 without a brace, 1 with. That means 20% of deaths were with a brace and only 10% of riders wear a brace. Wouldn’t that suggest that death is MORE likely if you wear a neck brace?

I could be way off base here but its just something to consider. In my opinion, The only weary for a conclusive test, if for 50% of the riders to be wearing a neck brace.

Kennyfreemoney wrote:

I didnt See in the article anywhere mentioning the percentage of riders who wear a neck brace vs ones who dont, but here’s something to think about. Many more people ride without braces. So whats to say the number of injuries (When a neck brace is warn) would not go up if the number of riders wearing neck braces went up? You need to look at the total percentage of riders wearing neck braces compared to the percentage of the injuries with and without neck braces.

Numbers for argument sake. 265 total Critical Cervical Spine Injuries. 90.5% without a brace. 9.5% with a brace.

If only 10% of riders wear a neck brace, then this study has to be deemed inconclusive.

Now lets say 10% is the amount of riders wearing a neck brace. There were 5 recorded deaths. 4 without a brace, 1 with. That means 20% of deaths were with a brace and only 10% of riders wear a brace. Wouldn’t that suggest that death is MORE likely if you wear a neck brace?

I could be way off base here but its just something to consider. In my opinion, The only weary for a conclusive test, if for 50% of the riders to be wearing a neck brace.

I posted something along those lines on the other thread and people called me names. Don’t waste your breath.

Kennyfreemoney wrote:

I didnt See in the article anywhere mentioning the percentage of riders who wear a neck brace vs ones who dont, but here’s something to think about. Many more people ride without braces. So whats to say the number of injuries (When a neck brace is warn) would not go up if the number of riders wearing neck braces went up? You need to look at the total percentage of riders wearing neck braces compared to the percentage of the injuries with and without neck braces.

Numbers for argument sake. 265 total Critical Cervical Spine Injuries. 90.5% without a brace. 9.5% with a brace.

If only 10% of riders wear a neck brace, then this study has to be deemed inconclusive.

Now lets say 10% is the amount of riders wearing a neck brace. There were 5 recorded deaths. 4 without a brace, 1 with. That means 20% of deaths were with a brace and only 10% of riders wear a brace. Wouldn’t that suggest that death is MORE likely if you wear a neck brace?

I could be way off base here but its just something to consider. In my opinion, The only weary for a conclusive test, if for 50% of the riders to be wearing a neck brace.

The study is specifically about the severity of spine related injuries between riders who were wearing neck braces and those who were not.

You're throwing in an unnecessary variable and it's distorting the data.

Vital has a few ocd threads watchers

Kennyfreemoney wrote:

I didnt See in the article anywhere mentioning the percentage of riders who wear a neck brace vs ones who dont, but here’s something to think about. Many more people ride without braces. So whats to say the number of injuries (When a neck brace is warn) would not go up if the number of riders wearing neck braces went up? You need to look at the total percentage of riders wearing neck braces compared to the percentage of the injuries with and without neck braces.

Numbers for argument sake. 265 total Critical Cervical Spine Injuries. 90.5% without a brace. 9.5% with a brace.

If only 10% of riders wear a neck brace, then this study has to be deemed inconclusive.

Now lets say 10% is the amount of riders wearing a neck brace. There were 5 recorded deaths. 4 without a brace, 1 with. That means 20% of deaths were with a brace and only 10% of riders wear a brace. Wouldn’t that suggest that death is MORE likely if you wear a neck brace?

I could be way off base here but its just something to consider. In my opinion, The only weary for a conclusive test, if for 50% of the riders to be wearing a neck brace.

Sheriff245 wrote:

I posted something along those lines on the other thread and people called me names. Don’t waste your breath.

While I understand your logic, I believe the fact that they pooled nearly an equivalent number of riders is the part that determines their numbers are indeed statistically reliable.

QUOTE: "Of the 8529 recorded patients, 4726 of them were toggled as “NO” which indicates neck protection was not in place at the time of injury and when the record was created. 3803 were toggled “YES” which indicates neck protection was in place at the time of injury and when the record was created."

I am sorry but this report is less than scientific. Where's the correlation coefficient to show strength of cause and effect? And even then, it doesn't prove anything. Even in the best of designs, there is never conclusive evidence that one thing causes another, only that there is relational strength and weakness. Or that there is , no correlation at all. I am for all the safety in the world but the more safe you feel, the more likely you are to engage in unsafe behavior thus causing injuries to that would have not happened either way. How many of the injuries were caused by a bike catching them in the back?I It will be almost impossible to know whether neck braces are truly making riders safer because no one will ever be able to design a study that first, has a large enough sample that can manipulate variables, and one that can be replicated. Here is study that uses a scientific method. http://ibrc.osu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Abstract_2016_Sathyanarayan.pdf

Kennyfreemoney wrote:

I didnt See in the article anywhere mentioning the percentage of riders who wear a neck brace vs ones who dont, but here’s something to think about. Many more people ride without braces. So whats to say the number of injuries (When a neck brace is warn) would not go up if the number of riders wearing neck braces went up? You need to look at the total percentage of riders wearing neck braces compared to the percentage of the injuries with and without neck braces.

Numbers for argument sake. 265 total Critical Cervical Spine Injuries. 90.5% without a brace. 9.5% with a brace.

If only 10% of riders wear a neck brace, then this study has to be deemed inconclusive.

Now lets say 10% is the amount of riders wearing a neck brace. There were 5 recorded deaths. 4 without a brace, 1 with. That means 20% of deaths were with a brace and only 10% of riders wear a brace. Wouldn’t that suggest that death is MORE likely if you wear a neck brace?

I could be way off base here but its just something to consider. In my opinion, The only weary for a conclusive test, if for 50% of the riders to be wearing a neck brace.

Sheriff245 wrote:

I posted something along those lines on the other thread and people called me names. Don’t waste your breath.

Kanewel433 wrote:

While I understand your logic, I believe the fact that they pooled nearly an equivalent number of riders is the part that determines their numbers are indeed statistically reliable.

QUOTE: "Of the 8529 recorded patients, 4726 of them were toggled as “NO” which indicates neck protection was not in place at the time of injury and when the record was created. 3803 were toggled “YES” which indicates neck protection was in place at the time of injury and when the record was created."

I have to admit to finding these numbers after writing my original post. Those numbers are significant enough to extrapolate. No matter the results or how the data was collected I believe in neck braces.

I still give more credit to the French study from a few years back though, as it was written by true scientists.

There is so much wrong scientifically with this “study” it’s hard to comprehend. This anecdotal evidence, not a study.

These stats may not be scientific but due to the nature of the sport and injury we may never have a scientific study. However, these figures may be useful for those on the fence. Added protection is a personal choice, for me, the more the better. If RV can win 4 SX titles wearing one, then its not a hindrance to racing.

You don’t need to have equal numbers in each study group to have a statistically significant result. Most medical studies attempt to do this but often a study can be significant with as few as 70 subjects in each test group.

All I know is if a neck brace can prevent cerivical spine injuries I’m wearing one. Have been for years.

Even if you don't agree with the data, I don't understand why everyone get's so angry, triggered, and upset as soon as neck braces are mentioned. Maybe you don't agree with them, that's fine but someone is still entitled to their choice of wearing one. It's as if people want the neck braces to fail and be able to say "told ya so".

If you wear one great, if you don't great it won't bother me either way.

I did not wear one for the longest time and after a while I decided to wear one. My sole reason is if i got an injury without one i would always somewhat blame myself for not wearing one and wonder "what if".

clinical2 wrote:

I am sorry but this report is less than scientific. Where's the correlation coefficient to show strength of cause and effect? And even then, it doesn't prove anything. Even in the best of designs, there is never conclusive evidence that one thing causes another, only that there is relational strength and weakness. Or that there is , no correlation at all. I am for all the safety in the world but the more safe you feel, the more likely you are to engage in unsafe behavior thus causing injuries to that would have not happened either way. How many of the injuries were caused by a bike catching them in the back?I It will be almost impossible to know whether neck braces are truly making riders safer because no one will ever be able to design a study that first, has a large enough sample that can manipulate variables, and one that can be replicated. Here is study that uses a scientific method. http://ibrc.osu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Abstract_2016_Sathyanarayan.pdf

Instead of arguing about the scientific nature or how the info was presented (which is largely irrelevant), why not focus on the results which show a drastic net positive while wearing a neck brace.

We lab test for drilled down hyper controlled situations, reducing enough variables to conduct repeatable tests and gauge results accurately. That same scenario is not possible in the real world. Real world accidents are unpredictable, each rider is not rigged with sensors, and no accident happens the same way. Long term data does a fantastic job of correcting for all of the potential variables, leaving you with an unbiased result at the end - in this case, hugely in favour of neck braces. Do you feel 10 years and nearly 10,000 injuries is not an adequate sample size?

Like anything, of course you can still get hurt regardless of what you wear (or don't wear), but like seatbelts and airbags, if they are likely to be better a huge percentage of the time (in this case, 80%+), then it is better to follow the rule, not the exceptions.

clinical2 wrote:

I am sorry but this report is less than scientific. Where's the correlation coefficient to show strength of cause and effect? And even then, it doesn't prove anything. Even in the best of designs, there is never conclusive evidence that one thing causes another, only that there is relational strength and weakness. Or that there is , no correlation at all. I am for all the safety in the world but the more safe you feel, the more likely you are to engage in unsafe behavior thus causing injuries to that would have not happened either way. How many of the injuries were caused by a bike catching them in the back?I It will be almost impossible to know whether neck braces are truly making riders safer because no one will ever be able to design a study that first, has a large enough sample that can manipulate variables, and one that can be replicated. Here is study that uses a scientific method. http://ibrc.osu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Abstract_2016_Sathyanarayan.pdf

AtlasBrace wrote:

Instead of arguing about the scientific nature or how the info was presented (which is largely irrelevant), why not focus on the results which show a drastic net positive while wearing a neck brace.

We lab test for drilled down hyper controlled situations, reducing enough variables to conduct repeatable tests and gauge results accurately. That same scenario is not possible in the real world. Real world accidents are unpredictable, each rider is not rigged with sensors, and no accident happens the same way. Long term data does a fantastic job of correcting for all of the potential variables, leaving you with an unbiased result at the end - in this case, hugely in favour of neck braces. Do you feel 10 years and nearly 10,000 injuries is not an adequate sample size?

Like anything, of course you can still get hurt regardless of what you wear (or don't wear), but like seatbelts and airbags, if they are likely to be better a huge percentage of the time (in this case, 80%+), then it is better to follow the rule, not the exceptions.

So, you are saying that the scientific nature of a study is irrelevant? Who do you work for, The FDA? Oh, no, you are one of the Big Pharma executives. Yes, I recognize your Atlas icon. The scientific method, as flawed as it is, is the only objective measure of how we are to base findings for daily decision making. I had three Ph.D. level Psychologist review the report submitted by the EMS company. Two of the Psychologist are research clinicians by profession. Each one stated that they would have never released a statement stating, based on what was presented, that these numbers prove that wearing a neck brace will prevent injury or save your life.

I am not against safety. My sons used to wear the braces when then first came to market. Out of over eight thousand riders only a tiny fraction experienced a spinal cord injury overall. There is nothing in that report that states what caused the injury and what may have prevented the injury. We do not know if the bike caused the injury or did the brace cause the injury. Yes, we know the person was riding dirtbikes. But, was it speed, was it size of a jump, was the person landed on, was the rider not wearing the brace correctly etc....

It could be argued that you have less than a 8.4% chance of ever sustaining a spinal chord injury based on that data set. We live close to a rider who was wearing a Leatt brace and the extension on the brace caused the severing of the spine. Wheres the information on the the prevalence of injury caused by the brace itself? I am not against safety, I am against flawed reports.

clinical2 wrote:

So, you are saying that the scientific nature of a study is irrelevant? Who do you work for, The FDA? Oh, no, you are one of the Big Pharma executives. Yes, I recognize your Atlas icon. The scientific method, as flawed as it is, is the only objective measure of how we are to base findings for daily decision making. I had three Ph.D. level Psychologist review the report submitted by the EMS company. Two of the Psychologist are research clinicians by profession. Each one stated that they would have never released a statement stating, based on what was presented, that these numbers prove that wearing a neck brace will prevent injury or save your life.

I am not against safety. My sons used to wear the braces when then first came to market. Out of over eight thousand riders only a tiny fraction experienced a spinal cord injury overall. There is nothing in that report that states what caused the injury and what may have prevented the injury. We do not know if the bike caused the injury or did the brace cause the injury. Yes, we know the person was riding dirtbikes. But, was it speed, was it size of a jump, was the person landed on, was the rider not wearing the brace correctly etc....

It could be argued that you have less than a 8.4% chance of ever sustaining a spinal chord injury based on that data set. We live close to a rider who was wearing a Leatt brace and the extension on the brace caused the severing of the spine. Wheres the information on the the prevalence of injury caused by the brace itself? I am not against safety, I am against flawed reports.

To use your criteria presented, let's say everyone with a brace on who got injured in the report was wearing the brace wrong, was going to fast, doing big sketchy jumps, all got landed on, and all got hit with the bike, and every one of the injuries was caused by the brace itself. Even if all those conditions existed for the recorded injuries..... they still had drastically less Cervical Spine injuries according to the data, compared to people without a brace. How could that be?

All I am saying is they are real world statistics. Statistics that show over time, it appears that neck braces must be helping to reduce certain injuries (mainly the ones they are designed for).

We have repeatable lab data showing drastic reductions in forces (as do at least 2 other manufacturers showing similar results), and now a 10 year real world data set also showing a drastic drop in cervical spine injuries among neck brace wearers to back up the lab data and show how those reductions translate to real world accidents. It's no coincidence injuries among the neck brace wearers were reduced - 10 years and 10,000 people is plenty big to correct for coincidences, and as I said it backs up what we see in a lab, and what others see in a lab.

Your counter argument is 1 accident with a flawed (and old) design, and squabbles about how the data was presented...

clinical2 wrote:

So, you are saying that the scientific nature of a study is irrelevant? Who do you work for, The FDA? Oh, no, you are one of the Big Pharma executives. Yes, I recognize your Atlas icon. The scientific method, as flawed as it is, is the only objective measure of how we are to base findings for daily decision making. I had three Ph.D. level Psychologist review the report submitted by the EMS company. Two of the Psychologist are research clinicians by profession. Each one stated that they would have never released a statement stating, based on what was presented, that these numbers prove that wearing a neck brace will prevent injury or save your life.

I am not against safety. My sons used to wear the braces when then first came to market. Out of over eight thousand riders only a tiny fraction experienced a spinal cord injury overall. There is nothing in that report that states what caused the injury and what may have prevented the injury. We do not know if the bike caused the injury or did the brace cause the injury. Yes, we know the person was riding dirtbikes. But, was it speed, was it size of a jump, was the person landed on, was the rider not wearing the brace correctly etc....

It could be argued that you have less than a 8.4% chance of ever sustaining a spinal chord injury based on that data set. We live close to a rider who was wearing a Leatt brace and the extension on the brace caused the severing of the spine. Wheres the information on the the prevalence of injury caused by the brace itself? I am not against safety, I am against flawed reports.

There’s not one person on earth that I’m aware of that believes a brace will prevent you from sustaining a neck injury or guarantee your survival, or even a helmet for that matter. . .

I’m an engineer by trade, and while it’s pretty obvious this report was not written with the scientific community in mind, the raw data is still very telling. When a company is set to bring a new product to market, do they rely only on lab testing or engineering calculations? No, not if they’re in the least bit competent, they would perform extensive real world testing to ensure that any variables and influences not present in the lab don’t effect the product in a negative way or produce unwanted results. Same goes for neck braces, lab testing is the best way for the companies themselves to test products before releasing them and to gather data, but what matters in the end is real world results. We now have an extensive amount of real world data that paints a clear trend, that’s all you can ask for at this point. Lab testing may have predicted that this would be the result, but now it’s known for sure.

JM485 wrote:

There’s not one person on earth that I’m aware of that believes a brace will prevent you from sustaining a neck injury or guarantee your survival, or even a helmet for that matter. . .

I’m an engineer by trade, and while it’s pretty obvious this report was not written with the scientific community in mind, the raw data is still very telling. When a company is set to bring a new product to market, do they rely only on lab testing or engineering calculations? No, not if they’re in the least bit competent, they would perform extensive real world testing to ensure that any variables and influences not present in the lab don’t effect the product in a negative way or produce unwanted results. Same goes for neck braces, lab testing is the best way for the companies themselves to test products before releasing them and to gather data, but what matters in the end is real world results. We now have an extensive amount of real world data that paints a clear trend, that’s all you can ask for at this point. Lab testing may have predicted that this would be the result, but now it’s known for sure.

Here is a study that was done by University of Virginia. It states that based on laboratory testing, more needs to be researched.

http://ibrc.osu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Abstract_2016_Sathyanarayan.pdf

Just looking for a reason to use this photo. Carry on...

clinical2 wrote:

Here is a study that was done by University of Virginia. It states that based on laboratory testing, more needs to be researched.

http://ibrc.osu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Abstract_2016_Sathyanarayan.pdf

Well, then isn't it nice of this EMS group to have done that!

AtlasBrace wrote:

Instead of arguing about the scientific nature or how the info was presented (which is largely irrelevant), why not focus on the results which show a drastic net positive while wearing a neck brace.

We lab test for drilled down hyper controlled situations, reducing enough variables to conduct repeatable tests and gauge results accurately. That same scenario is not possible in the real world. Real world accidents are unpredictable, each rider is not rigged with sensors, and no accident happens the same way. Long term data does a fantastic job of correcting for all of the potential variables, leaving you with an unbiased result at the end - in this case, hugely in favour of neck braces. Do you feel 10 years and nearly 10,000 injuries is not an adequate sample size?

Like anything, of course you can still get hurt regardless of what you wear (or don't wear), but like seatbelts and airbags, if they are likely to be better a huge percentage of the time (in this case, 80%+), then it is better to follow the rule, not the exceptions.

clinical2 wrote:

So, you are saying that the scientific nature of a study is irrelevant? Who do you work for, The FDA? Oh, no, you are one of the Big Pharma executives. Yes, I recognize your Atlas icon. The scientific method, as flawed as it is, is the only objective measure of how we are to base findings for daily decision making. I had three Ph.D. level Psychologist review the report submitted by the EMS company. Two of the Psychologist are research clinicians by profession. Each one stated that they would have never released a statement stating, based on what was presented, that these numbers prove that wearing a neck brace will prevent injury or save your life.

I am not against safety. My sons used to wear the braces when then first came to market. Out of over eight thousand riders only a tiny fraction experienced a spinal cord injury overall. There is nothing in that report that states what caused the injury and what may have prevented the injury. We do not know if the bike caused the injury or did the brace cause the injury. Yes, we know the person was riding dirtbikes. But, was it speed, was it size of a jump, was the person landed on, was the rider not wearing the brace correctly etc....

It could be argued that you have less than a 8.4% chance of ever sustaining a spinal chord injury based on that data set. We live close to a rider who was wearing a Leatt brace and the extension on the brace caused the severing of the spine. Wheres the information on the the prevalence of injury caused by the brace itself? I am not against safety, I am against flawed reports.

AtlasBrace wrote:

To use your criteria presented, let's say everyone with a brace on who got injured in the report was wearing the brace wrong, was going to fast, doing big sketchy jumps, all got landed on, and all got hit with the bike, and every one of the injuries was caused by the brace itself. Even if all those conditions existed for the recorded injuries..... they still had drastically less Cervical Spine injuries according to the data, compared to people without a brace. How could that be?

All I am saying is they are real world statistics. Statistics that show over time, it appears that neck braces must be helping to reduce certain injuries (mainly the ones they are designed for).

We have repeatable lab data showing drastic reductions in forces (as do at least 2 other manufacturers showing similar results), and now a 10 year real world data set also showing a drastic drop in cervical spine injuries among neck brace wearers to back up the lab data and show how those reductions translate to real world accidents. It's no coincidence injuries among the neck brace wearers were reduced - 10 years and 10,000 people is plenty big to correct for coincidences, and as I said it backs up what we see in a lab, and what others see in a lab.

Your counter argument is 1 accident with a flawed (and old) design, and squabbles about how the data was presented...

If someone measured for all of those variables, the data sets would be significantly different, but we do not know if any of those circumstances are attributable to the injury. That's the point. In order to conclude a correlation, between neck brace and decrease of injury, you must operationalize the variables, then assign measurement criteria. This was not done and is not consider a legitimate report. It isn't responsible to make claims that will influence individuals based on bias and subjective opinions.

clinical2 wrote:

Here is a study that was done by University of Virginia. It states that based on laboratory testing, more needs to be researched.

http://ibrc.osu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Abstract_2016_Sathyanarayan.pdf

It also states there was a benefit with the brace on.

That's at least 3 companies, 1 University, and a 10 year real world data set all showing neck braces work as intended.

FWIW, all products need "more research", nothing is ever finished... but it doesn't mean what we have isn't good.

JM485 wrote:

There’s not one person on earth that I’m aware of that believes a brace will prevent you from sustaining a neck injury or guarantee your survival, or even a helmet for that matter. . .

I’m an engineer by trade, and while it’s pretty obvious this report was not written with the scientific community in mind, the raw data is still very telling. When a company is set to bring a new product to market, do they rely only on lab testing or engineering calculations? No, not if they’re in the least bit competent, they would perform extensive real world testing to ensure that any variables and influences not present in the lab don’t effect the product in a negative way or produce unwanted results. Same goes for neck braces, lab testing is the best way for the companies themselves to test products before releasing them and to gather data, but what matters in the end is real world results. We now have an extensive amount of real world data that paints a clear trend, that’s all you can ask for at this point. Lab testing may have predicted that this would be the result, but now it’s known for sure.

clinical2 wrote:

Here is a study that was done by University of Virginia. It states that based on laboratory testing, more needs to be researched.

http://ibrc.osu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Abstract_2016_Sathyanarayan.pdf

MPJC wrote:

Well, then isn't it nice of this EMS group to have done that!

The EMS is an ambulance company in Michigan. They are not qualified to submit such claims. This study was not done by the ambulance company. It was performed by the University of Virginia.

JM485 wrote:

There’s not one person on earth that I’m aware of that believes a brace will prevent you from sustaining a neck injury or guarantee your survival, or even a helmet for that matter. . .

I’m an engineer by trade, and while it’s pretty obvious this report was not written with the scientific community in mind, the raw data is still very telling. When a company is set to bring a new product to market, do they rely only on lab testing or engineering calculations? No, not if they’re in the least bit competent, they would perform extensive real world testing to ensure that any variables and influences not present in the lab don’t effect the product in a negative way or produce unwanted results. Same goes for neck braces, lab testing is the best way for the companies themselves to test products before releasing them and to gather data, but what matters in the end is real world results. We now have an extensive amount of real world data that paints a clear trend, that’s all you can ask for at this point. Lab testing may have predicted that this would be the result, but now it’s known for sure.

clinical2 wrote:

Here is a study that was done by University of Virginia. It states that based on laboratory testing, more needs to be researched.

http://ibrc.osu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Abstract_2016_Sathyanarayan.pdf

AtlasBrace wrote:

It also states there was a benefit with the brace on.

That's at least 3 companies, 1 University, and a 10 year real world data set all showing neck braces work as intended.

FWIW, all products need "more research", nothing is ever finished... but it doesn't mean what we have isn't good.

That is not what it says.
introducing the standard brace showed negligible brace to helmet interaction prior to onset of the predicted neck injury,and resulted in an insignificant reduction in injury risk

The ineffectiveness of the neck brace was attributed to the standoff distance between the brace and the helmet (~50mm) being greater than the amount of neck compression at the time of injury.

clinical2 wrote:

If someone measured for all of those variables, the data sets would be significantly different, but we do not know if any of those circumstances are attributable to the injury. That's the point. In order to conclude a correlation, between neck brace and decrease of injury, you must operationalize the variables, then assign measurement criteria. This was not done and is not consider a legitimate report. It isn't responsible to make claims that will influence individuals based on bias and subjective opinions.

Isn't the correlation already there, plain to see? What we're interested in is establishing causation. Do you have an alternative explanation for the data (and yes, argument to the best explanation is a perfectly respectable form of argument)? What evidence of bias do you see? What do you take to be subjective? Aren't the procedures that you're describing exactly what companies like Atlas do in their testing - testing that gives them reason to predict results like we see in this study? If you are, in fact, knowledgeable in scientific method, I won't have to tell you that while attaining the predicted results does not confirm with certainty that they are correct in their claims about neck braces and safety (in science, nothing is ever confirmed with certainty), the fact that they haven't been falsified is significant.

clinical2 wrote:

If someone measured for all of those variables, the data sets would be significantly different, but we do not know if any of those circumstances are attributable to the injury. That's the point. In order to conclude a correlation, between neck brace and decrease of injury, you must operationalize the variables, then assign measurement criteria. This was not done and is not consider a legitimate report. It isn't responsible to make claims that will influence individuals based on bias and subjective opinions.

Would they though? The real world doesn't care about variables, any and all possible variables have to be included in the data - because they have no way to exclude them. If they aren't excluded, they must be included.

Real world injury numbers over time paint the picture you are looking for, and they show a net benefit.

If (for example) you found a way to extrapolate that on a moderate sunny day, at a speed of 32.3mph, over a jump less than 15 feet in height, but greater than 4 feet in height, and no loner than 60 feet, if your body angle relative to the motorcycle is +10 degrees, you weigh between 150, and 163 LBS, and you crash in some specific way with your head at a particular angle, with a mid-high end helmet, that a certain neck brace will make the situation worse for your 3rd rib on the right side - will you not wear one?

You are looking for an exception to show it doesn't work, but it's the rule that matters, and the rule (thus far) says that it works.

clinical2 wrote:

Here is a study that was done by University of Virginia. It states that based on laboratory testing, more needs to be researched.

http://ibrc.osu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Abstract_2016_Sathyanarayan.pdf

AtlasBrace wrote:

It also states there was a benefit with the brace on.

That's at least 3 companies, 1 University, and a 10 year real world data set all showing neck braces work as intended.

FWIW, all products need "more research", nothing is ever finished... but it doesn't mean what we have isn't good.

clinical2 wrote:

That is not what it says.
introducing the standard brace showed negligible brace to helmet interaction prior to onset of the predicted neck injury,and resulted in an insignificant reduction in injury risk

The ineffectiveness of the neck brace was attributed to the standoff distance between the brace and the helmet (~50mm) being greater than the amount of neck compression at the time of injury.

Don't wear a neck brace. Nobody cares...

AtlasBrace wrote:

To use your criteria presented, let's say everyone with a brace on who got injured in the report was wearing the brace wrong, was going to fast, doing big sketchy jumps, all got landed on, and all got hit with the bike, and every one of the injuries was caused by the brace itself. Even if all those conditions existed for the recorded injuries..... they still had drastically less Cervical Spine injuries according to the data, compared to people without a brace. How could that be?

All I am saying is they are real world statistics. Statistics that show over time, it appears that neck braces must be helping to reduce certain injuries (mainly the ones they are designed for).

We have repeatable lab data showing drastic reductions in forces (as do at least 2 other manufacturers showing similar results), and now a 10 year real world data set also showing a drastic drop in cervical spine injuries among neck brace wearers to back up the lab data and show how those reductions translate to real world accidents. It's no coincidence injuries among the neck brace wearers were reduced - 10 years and 10,000 people is plenty big to correct for coincidences, and as I said it backs up what we see in a lab, and what others see in a lab.

Your counter argument is 1 accident with a flawed (and old) design, and squabbles about how the data was presented...

clinical2 wrote:

If someone measured for all of those variables, the data sets would be significantly different, but we do not know if any of those circumstances are attributable to the injury. That's the point. In order to conclude a correlation, between neck brace and decrease of injury, you must operationalize the variables, then assign measurement criteria. This was not done and is not consider a legitimate report. It isn't responsible to make claims that will influence individuals based on bias and subjective opinions.

AtlasBrace wrote:

Would they though? The real world doesn't care about variables, any and all possible variables have to be included in the data - because they have no way to exclude them. If they aren't excluded, they must be included.

Real world injury numbers over time paint the picture you are looking for, and they show a net benefit.

If (for example) you found a way to extrapolate that on a moderate sunny day, at a speed of 32.3mph, over a jump less than 15 feet in height, but greater than 4 feet in height, and no loner than 60 feet, if your body angle relative to the motorcycle is +10 degrees, you weigh between 150, and 163 LBS, and you crash in some specific way with your head at a particular angle, with a mid-high end helmet, that a certain neck brace will make the situation worse for your 3rd rib on the right side - will you not wear one?

You are looking for an exception to show it doesn't work, but it's the rule that matters, and the rule (thus far) says that it works.

Are you aware that an ambulance company who transports riders to the hospital wrote this less than professional report? Do you think that the hospital divulged private information on the details of the patients? All this report is telling everyone is that a tiny percent of riders had injuries with and without a brace. That isn't enough information to make an objective conclusion. Obviously, it is enough to make a subjective conclusion.