It has been nearly a year since I wrote this up, but it has been making the rounds again. I honestly want to know why this “peer-reviewed” article has not been retracted. This is one of the most blatant oversights I have witnessed in publications, and that is not hyperbole. Read the following for yourself:
Is it a bombshell or is it just a plain dud? I say bombshell, but not in a good way for anyone involved with this “research”.
Last week I was inundated with emails regarding this “new” research about mouth guards and concussions. There were roughly 16 emails in a one hour time span; some wanting comment, some telling me I have been wrong all along, some promoting the research. This was a “huge” development in my area and my little corner in the blogosphere. To fully understand perhaps some history is needed (“mouth gear” search on this blog) when it comes to my feelings on mouth gear and concussions. Here are some selected comments attributed to me;
- For a health care professional dealing with sports injuries this should be a telling statement. However there are those out there trying to push a product and make money on the misinformation about concussions.
- Rather, it is the insinuation of the marketing that makes these products seem as though they will prevent or even decrease concussive episodes.
- And to claim that there are devices out there that WILL reduce concussions is just as dangerous as not investigating the possibilities of it working.
The basic fundamentals we should be cognizant of here are: concussion is a BRAIN injury, the BRAIN floats inside skull, Physics dictates that the BRAIN will move depending on the forces applied to the skull/head (not always from a blow to that area), mouth gear cannot stop the BRAIN from moving, mouth gear cannot attenuate any forces to the skull/head that are not in the oral region, mouth gear does nothing for the skull/head when forces are placed on it in rotational, angular, acceleration or deceleration fashion.
Now that we have that all out-of-the-way this is the General Dentistry article I was asked to comment on. On face value and from a “peer-reviewed” angle itseems all good. A significant finding between custom mouth gear (noted as LM MG in article) and over the counter “boil and bite” mouth gear (noted as OTC MG). However once you take a deeper look there are some peculiar problems, in my humble opinion – that comes later.
First, we should look at the possible limitations of this study that seems well populated and well thought out (honestly these were my first concerns before finding the real issue):
- Were the injuries controlled for by football position? (we have documented this issue here)
- Were the injuries controlled for by size of players/school they were playing?
- Were the injuries controlled for by playing time? (more exposure more risk)
- Were the injuries controlled for by game vs. practice?
- Were all the injuries seen and recorded by a single MD or was it the ATC at each school?
- Did any of the players have a previous history of concussion?
- Was the study controlled based on practice habits of the teams? (do some hit more than others)
- How do we know that every player complied with the “no wedging or chewing” rule? (this plays a massive role later)
- The study says that all 412 subjects wore the same exact helmet, I find that: A) hard to believe and B) was the fit on every player the relatively the same?
- Who funded this research? (no disclosure)
As you can see there is a litany of reasons I would have dismissed this research, if I were peer reviewing because those limitations are extremely real and realistic Continue reading