10 Year Neck Brace Study Results

PRM31
Posts
2140
Joined
8/7/2009
Location
Northern, VA US
12/7/2018 3:18pm
9400+ cases documented by ambulance personnel, and a study by medical personnel and some still feel they know better based on....

Obviously, or not I guess, it doesn’t include cases where the rider didn’t get examined by ambulance personnel.
7
12/7/2018 3:20pm
Interesting stats, worn a brace since they first come out, having a pretty long neck I can’t say I even notice I’m wearing it.

Broken collar bones a few times both with and without it, although the common factor was impact on the side of the shoulder rather than a brace pushing on the bone itself. I’ll take damaged collarbones shoulders and chests over a broken neck any day. The only area I don’t see it helping is a force down through the spine...but there isn’t anything that could help in that situation.
12/7/2018 3:21pm Edited Date/Time 12/7/2018 3:22pm
PRM31 wrote:
9400+ cases documented by ambulance personnel, and a study by medical personnel and some still feel they know better based on.... Obviously, or not I guess...
9400+ cases documented by ambulance personnel, and a study by medical personnel and some still feel they know better based on....

Obviously, or not I guess, it doesn’t include cases where the rider didn’t get examined by ambulance personnel.
The words ‘my belief’ are pretty powerful, as we have seen throughout human history haha.
1
smoothies862
Posts
3215
Joined
3/18/2014
Location
OH US
Fantasy
787th
12/7/2018 3:23pm Edited Date/Time 12/7/2018 4:17pm
I can add some more data.
1 month ago I crashed very hard. bruised the entire top of my head,large knot on right side of face ear level (googles hitting?) jaw wouldn't open fully for 2 weeks.brand new troy lee with mips. visor screw sheared away as designed. so thank you to troy and the inventor of mips. it saved my brain. I broke t3 and 4 into pieces. 2 rods and 10 screws. I was wearing an atlas. my neck was very swollen and rainbow of bruising. witness and surgeon/drs are sure the atlas brace saved my butt from being much worse. I had bruises where the 4 posts of the brace contact the body. the make you think moment I started my bike that day and realized I left my brace on the truck as I was heading to the track. turned around and put it on. I never had an issue with comfort of the new atlas design. the force and energy was loaded through the brace I can see and feel it. I am a believer and yes I know every crash is different. change my angle by a few degrees maybe nothing is broke. maybe its worse. you moto guys know when normal people say something was violent or a hard hit. well from a fellow moto guy this was a nasty one. so im thankful I can feel the pain and will be good eventually. after seeing others hurt I thought I would never want to be laying there wondering if a brace would have saved me. hopefully this helps someone. ride smart and safe brothers.
17

The Shop

hoppsan
Posts
554
Joined
9/3/2009
Location
Stockholm SE
12/7/2018 3:33pm Edited Date/Time 12/7/2018 3:38pm
crusty_xx wrote:
These numbers mean nothing if not put in relation of how many people wear a brace compared to the ones that don't wear a brace... 1000...
These numbers mean nothing if not put in relation of how many people wear a brace compared to the ones that don't wear a brace...

1000 times more people get hurt with a car compared to a jetpack.
So jetpacks are safer now?
drt410 wrote:
Yea so what do the results look like if the number of riders using one and not using one are equal. Thats the results which will...
Yea so what do the results look like if the number of riders using one and not using one are equal. Thats the results which will show if it is much safer or not.
MPJC wrote:
You guys can't be serious. The data specifies the total number, the number wearing a brace, and the number not wearing a brace, and calculates the...
You guys can't be serious. The data specifies the total number, the number wearing a brace, and the number not wearing a brace, and calculates the likelihood of death or injury of brace vs no brace on that basis, given the numbers of injuries or deaths occurring. Are you actually suggesting that you need a sample in which the number of brace users vs. non-brace users is equal - that you can't compensate for the differences with simple math?
I don't think you understand their point. If you have no data regarding what percentage of riders wear a neck brace to begin with, you can not in any way extrapolate any meaningful numbers from a study like this one. If there are 90000 active riders without a neck brace, 10000 with one, and if you have a sample of 1000 collar-bone injuries; then you would expect to see 900 injured without a neck brace and 100 with one (if the assumption is that the brace neither causes nor prevents such injuries). If the numbers in that case would deviate (by more than what you would expect) in one direction or the other, then it would perhaps point at something interesting. Perhaps.

Since 10 years is a long time and the usage of neck braces has fluctuated quite a bit during this period, it is even a reasonable request to see the data on a biannually spaced plot (or something like it), paired with the ratio of riders who do wear a neck brace to begin with at that specific point in time.

For all we know the numbers published in those graphs, if we had the ratio of riders wearing a neck brace at that point available, could just as well point to neck braces causing more/worse injuries!

I personally think that many neck braces (perhaps not all) do more good than harm. But I don't know, and this study really isn't done in a properly scientific way so it didn't clear up anything in that regard. Great marketing, however.
6
7
disbanded
Posts
6105
Joined
8/26/2007
Location
Denver, CO US
Fantasy
1676th
12/7/2018 3:43pm
I knew this was going to be a mind-numbing thread
5
RichieW13
Posts
1798
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Thousand Oaks, CA US
Fantasy
2916th
12/7/2018 3:49pm
This is terrible statistical analysis.

Problem #1: We have no data for riders that fell, but got up without reporting an injury. This would be the optimal outcome for wearing a neck brace, but this study does nothing to tell us whether the neck brace helps with that or not.

Problem #2: The math. For item #1, they mention an 89% greater risk of cervical spine injury. Problem one, is the math is just wrong. 26 divided by 239 is 11%, so they are saying 89% more likely. But that's not how you calculate a liklihood. Instead, what they are calculating is that "of reported cervical spine injuries, only 11% were wearing a neck brace". Or, they could say "there were over 9 times as many neck injuries without a neck brace".

But both of those would still not be meaningful, because there is a different rate of patients wearing neck braces. So it would be a little more valuable to divide injuries by patients (again this is still not terribly helpful, because we don't know the rate of non-injury). They had 3,803 patients with neck braces, and 26 cervical spine injuries, for a rate of 0.7% cervical spine injury with a neck brace. They had 4,726 patients without neck braces and 239 cervical spine injuries, for a rate of 5.1% cervical spine injuries. NOW, we at least have a rough estimate of rate of injury. If we divide those rates, we get 7.4. So you could say a cervical neck injury is over 7 times more likely. OR, we take the increase in injury rate (5.1% - 0.7% = 4.4%) and divide by the starting rate (0.7%) and get a 629% increase in cervical spine injuries.


Also, they mention 901 of the patients did not indicate "yes" or "no" for a neck brace. If they were injured, were they included in the data?
9
4
crusty_xx
Posts
8550
Joined
6/8/2013
Location
CH
Fantasy
156th
12/7/2018 3:57pm
crusty_xx wrote:
These numbers mean nothing if not put in relation of how many people wear a brace compared to the ones that don't wear a brace... 1000...
These numbers mean nothing if not put in relation of how many people wear a brace compared to the ones that don't wear a brace...

1000 times more people get hurt with a car compared to a jetpack.
So jetpacks are safer now?
drt410 wrote:
Yea so what do the results look like if the number of riders using one and not using one are equal. Thats the results which will...
Yea so what do the results look like if the number of riders using one and not using one are equal. Thats the results which will show if it is much safer or not.
MPJC wrote:
You guys can't be serious. The data specifies the total number, the number wearing a brace, and the number not wearing a brace, and calculates the...
You guys can't be serious. The data specifies the total number, the number wearing a brace, and the number not wearing a brace, and calculates the likelihood of death or injury of brace vs no brace on that basis, given the numbers of injuries or deaths occurring. Are you actually suggesting that you need a sample in which the number of brace users vs. non-brace users is equal - that you can't compensate for the differences with simple math?
I am serious.
You need a total number, you can not make a statistic without a total number or any relation to a total number.
Or at least I don't know how to compensate that with "simple math"...

That's like saying only 20 guys broke their back riding an electric bike.
So electric bikes must be safer (ignoring the fact that only a low percentage of MX riders use electric bikes).
3
1
MPJC
Posts
880
Joined
5/18/2017
Location
CA
Fantasy
592nd
12/7/2018 4:00pm
RichieW13 wrote:
This is terrible statistical analysis. Problem #1: We have no data for riders that fell, but got up without reporting an injury. This would be the...
This is terrible statistical analysis.

Problem #1: We have no data for riders that fell, but got up without reporting an injury. This would be the optimal outcome for wearing a neck brace, but this study does nothing to tell us whether the neck brace helps with that or not.

Problem #2: The math. For item #1, they mention an 89% greater risk of cervical spine injury. Problem one, is the math is just wrong. 26 divided by 239 is 11%, so they are saying 89% more likely. But that's not how you calculate a liklihood. Instead, what they are calculating is that "of reported cervical spine injuries, only 11% were wearing a neck brace". Or, they could say "there were over 9 times as many neck injuries without a neck brace".

But both of those would still not be meaningful, because there is a different rate of patients wearing neck braces. So it would be a little more valuable to divide injuries by patients (again this is still not terribly helpful, because we don't know the rate of non-injury). They had 3,803 patients with neck braces, and 26 cervical spine injuries, for a rate of 0.7% cervical spine injury with a neck brace. They had 4,726 patients without neck braces and 239 cervical spine injuries, for a rate of 5.1% cervical spine injuries. NOW, we at least have a rough estimate of rate of injury. If we divide those rates, we get 7.4. So you could say a cervical neck injury is over 7 times more likely. OR, we take the increase in injury rate (5.1% - 0.7% = 4.4%) and divide by the starting rate (0.7%) and get a 629% increase in cervical spine injuries.


Also, they mention 901 of the patients did not indicate "yes" or "no" for a neck brace. If they were injured, were they included in the data?
I don’t think that problem #1 is a huge problem if you assume a similar rate of crashing between neck brace users vs not. Your analysis of problem #2 seems correct. It still supports the claim that injury rates are lower with braces. Much lower.
2
RichieW13
Posts
1798
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Thousand Oaks, CA US
Fantasy
2916th
12/7/2018 4:11pm
MPJC wrote:
I don’t think that problem #1 is a huge problem if you assume a similar rate of crashing between neck brace users vs not. Your analysis...
I don’t think that problem #1 is a huge problem if you assume a similar rate of crashing between neck brace users vs not. Your analysis of problem #2 seems correct. It still supports the claim that injury rates are lower with braces. Much lower.
Fair point. Though it's possible that the rate may not be similar.

- If neck braces make it harder to turn your head, maybe it could lead to more frequent crashing.
- Neck braces could make riders feel safer, and willing to take more chances.
- Neck braces could make riders more conscious of crashing, and take less chances.
- Maybe beginner-type riders are more likely to wear neck braces, and more likely to fall. Or, are beginners REALLY cautious and LESS likely to fall?

There are many variables which could change the crash rate in either direction.
6
2
MPJC
Posts
880
Joined
5/18/2017
Location
CA
Fantasy
592nd
12/7/2018 4:33pm
drt410 wrote:
Yea so what do the results look like if the number of riders using one and not using one are equal. Thats the results which will...
Yea so what do the results look like if the number of riders using one and not using one are equal. Thats the results which will show if it is much safer or not.
MPJC wrote:
You guys can't be serious. The data specifies the total number, the number wearing a brace, and the number not wearing a brace, and calculates the...
You guys can't be serious. The data specifies the total number, the number wearing a brace, and the number not wearing a brace, and calculates the likelihood of death or injury of brace vs no brace on that basis, given the numbers of injuries or deaths occurring. Are you actually suggesting that you need a sample in which the number of brace users vs. non-brace users is equal - that you can't compensate for the differences with simple math?
crusty_xx wrote:
I am serious. You need a total number, you can not make a statistic without a total number or any relation to a total number. Or...
I am serious.
You need a total number, you can not make a statistic without a total number or any relation to a total number.
Or at least I don't know how to compensate that with "simple math"...

That's like saying only 20 guys broke their back riding an electric bike.
So electric bikes must be safer (ignoring the fact that only a low percentage of MX riders use electric bikes).
What matters is that the sample is sufficiently large and representative (you want it to be large so it can be representative). You can, for example, generalize about the percentage of stars are likely to be the size of our sun if you observe tens of thousands of stars, even knowing full well that we haven’t a hot clue about how many stars there are. We would, of course, have to assume that unoberserved areas are similar to observed areas. If the population of unobserved riders is relevantly similar to the population of observered riders, then we can assume that the injury rates will be similar, however many there are. You find out how many are wearing neck braces by asking. If you ask 10,000 and 5,000 say that they wear one, then if your sample is unbiased you can say “if there are 1,000,000 riders, then 500,000 wear one”. This is how statistical generalizations work. All universal categorical statements are ultimately conditionals (“all S is P” means “if there is an S, then it is P”). You can work with conditionals without knowing the actual totals - you don’t have to know how many S there are. So the question is not: how many total riders are there, and how many of them wear neck braces? That’s too hard, and quite unnecessary. It is: how are we going to get a sample that represents the diversity of the population, however large it may be?
3
MPJC
Posts
880
Joined
5/18/2017
Location
CA
Fantasy
592nd
12/7/2018 4:38pm
MPJC wrote:
I don’t think that problem #1 is a huge problem if you assume a similar rate of crashing between neck brace users vs not. Your analysis...
I don’t think that problem #1 is a huge problem if you assume a similar rate of crashing between neck brace users vs not. Your analysis of problem #2 seems correct. It still supports the claim that injury rates are lower with braces. Much lower.
RichieW13 wrote:
Fair point. Though it's possible that the rate may not be similar. - If neck braces make it harder to turn your head, maybe it could...
Fair point. Though it's possible that the rate may not be similar.

- If neck braces make it harder to turn your head, maybe it could lead to more frequent crashing.
- Neck braces could make riders feel safer, and willing to take more chances.
- Neck braces could make riders more conscious of crashing, and take less chances.
- Maybe beginner-type riders are more likely to wear neck braces, and more likely to fall. Or, are beginners REALLY cautious and LESS likely to fall?

There are many variables which could change the crash rate in either direction.
These are exactly the right questions. Further study would be very helpful!
Motodave15
Posts
4260
Joined
8/7/2010
Location
Temple City, CA US
12/7/2018 4:59pm
Interesting data.... side note, 10pager incoming
hoppsan
Posts
554
Joined
9/3/2009
Location
Stockholm SE
12/7/2018 5:25pm Edited Date/Time 12/7/2018 5:40pm
MPJC wrote:
You guys can't be serious. The data specifies the total number, the number wearing a brace, and the number not wearing a brace, and calculates the...
You guys can't be serious. The data specifies the total number, the number wearing a brace, and the number not wearing a brace, and calculates the likelihood of death or injury of brace vs no brace on that basis, given the numbers of injuries or deaths occurring. Are you actually suggesting that you need a sample in which the number of brace users vs. non-brace users is equal - that you can't compensate for the differences with simple math?
crusty_xx wrote:
I am serious. You need a total number, you can not make a statistic without a total number or any relation to a total number. Or...
I am serious.
You need a total number, you can not make a statistic without a total number or any relation to a total number.
Or at least I don't know how to compensate that with "simple math"...

That's like saying only 20 guys broke their back riding an electric bike.
So electric bikes must be safer (ignoring the fact that only a low percentage of MX riders use electric bikes).
MPJC wrote:
What matters is that the sample is sufficiently large and representative (you want it to be large so it can be representative). You can, for example...
What matters is that the sample is sufficiently large and representative (you want it to be large so it can be representative). You can, for example, generalize about the percentage of stars are likely to be the size of our sun if you observe tens of thousands of stars, even knowing full well that we haven’t a hot clue about how many stars there are. We would, of course, have to assume that unoberserved areas are similar to observed areas. If the population of unobserved riders is relevantly similar to the population of observered riders, then we can assume that the injury rates will be similar, however many there are. You find out how many are wearing neck braces by asking. If you ask 10,000 and 5,000 say that they wear one, then if your sample is unbiased you can say “if there are 1,000,000 riders, then 500,000 wear one”. This is how statistical generalizations work. All universal categorical statements are ultimately conditionals (“all S is P” means “if there is an S, then it is P”). You can work with conditionals without knowing the actual totals - you don’t have to know how many S there are. So the question is not: how many total riders are there, and how many of them wear neck braces? That’s too hard, and quite unnecessary. It is: how are we going to get a sample that represents the diversity of the population, however large it may be?
This is all true, but where in the report do you gather a number of what percentage of riders (from any sample-size, but the larger the better) they presume ride with a neck brace, and in what way do they make use of that number in the conclusions they draw? This is an incredibly important number to have and a severe oversight in this report in my personal opinion, you are naturally free to convince me (and crusty_xx and whoever else who have brought this flaw up) otherwise.

Edit (perhaps this should have been in another post entirely...): I understand (or rather, I think I understand) that you are saying that it is okay to use the gathered data on the injured riders and simply use that to deduce the percentage of riders wearing a neck brace in total by assuming that the ratio is the same. That however, would possibly (and probably) skew the results heavily in either direction unless neck braces have no impact (negative or positive) on the injury rate what so ever. After all, if the reports conclusion is to be presumed correct, then the ratio of neck brace wearers who are severely injured compared to the ones who did not wear one would be a lot smaller than the same ratio among riders in total (since neck brace riders more often, according to this data, would escape injury and thus not need medical care).

I'm not saying that all of that data is without merit or interest, it surely is interesting and noteworthy, but it surely cannot be used to make any "this settles it" kind of statements. Well, according to me at least.
1
Deja New
Posts
2763
Joined
11/22/2016
Location
AU
12/7/2018 5:26pm
brimx153 wrote:
One more thing that was my took into account, is how many % wear neck braces. Here I'd say it's 80% don't And 20 % do...
One more thing that was my took into account, is how many % wear neck braces. Here I'd say it's 80% don't And 20 % do so there is going to be a higher avg of people falling off without them
I thought that exact same thing too, but then if you read the article it says of 8529 recorded patients 55.5% (4726) had no brace 44.5 (3803) had one. That gives some correlation to % of riders with and with out is not quite 50 50 of those that crashed and needed medical attention. so 80% to 20% is a long way off these stats.
3
MPJC
Posts
880
Joined
5/18/2017
Location
CA
Fantasy
592nd
12/7/2018 5:45pm
crusty_xx wrote:
I am serious. You need a total number, you can not make a statistic without a total number or any relation to a total number. Or...
I am serious.
You need a total number, you can not make a statistic without a total number or any relation to a total number.
Or at least I don't know how to compensate that with "simple math"...

That's like saying only 20 guys broke their back riding an electric bike.
So electric bikes must be safer (ignoring the fact that only a low percentage of MX riders use electric bikes).
MPJC wrote:
What matters is that the sample is sufficiently large and representative (you want it to be large so it can be representative). You can, for example...
What matters is that the sample is sufficiently large and representative (you want it to be large so it can be representative). You can, for example, generalize about the percentage of stars are likely to be the size of our sun if you observe tens of thousands of stars, even knowing full well that we haven’t a hot clue about how many stars there are. We would, of course, have to assume that unoberserved areas are similar to observed areas. If the population of unobserved riders is relevantly similar to the population of observered riders, then we can assume that the injury rates will be similar, however many there are. You find out how many are wearing neck braces by asking. If you ask 10,000 and 5,000 say that they wear one, then if your sample is unbiased you can say “if there are 1,000,000 riders, then 500,000 wear one”. This is how statistical generalizations work. All universal categorical statements are ultimately conditionals (“all S is P” means “if there is an S, then it is P”). You can work with conditionals without knowing the actual totals - you don’t have to know how many S there are. So the question is not: how many total riders are there, and how many of them wear neck braces? That’s too hard, and quite unnecessary. It is: how are we going to get a sample that represents the diversity of the population, however large it may be?
hoppsan wrote:
This is all true, but where in the report do you gather a number of what percentage of riders (from any sample-size, but the larger the...
This is all true, but where in the report do you gather a number of what percentage of riders (from any sample-size, but the larger the better) they presume ride with a neck brace, and in what way do they make use of that number in the conclusions they draw? This is an incredibly important number to have and a severe oversight in this report in my personal opinion, you are naturally free to convince me (and crusty_xx and whoever else who have brought this flaw up) otherwise.

Edit (perhaps this should have been in another post entirely...): I understand (or rather, I think I understand) that you are saying that it is okay to use the gathered data on the injured riders and simply use that to deduce the percentage of riders wearing a neck brace in total by assuming that the ratio is the same. That however, would possibly (and probably) skew the results heavily in either direction unless neck braces have no impact (negative or positive) on the injury rate what so ever. After all, if the reports conclusion is to be presumed correct, then the ratio of neck brace wearers who are severely injured compared to the ones who did not wear one would be a lot smaller than the same ratio among riders in total (since neck brace riders more often, according to this data, would escape injury and thus not need medical care).

I'm not saying that all of that data is without merit or interest, it surely is interesting and noteworthy, but it surely cannot be used to make any "this settles it" kind of statements. Well, according to me at least.
Yes, I see you're point, and it's a fair one. What we need to do is put it in the context of what it is we want to know, which is: If I have a bad crash, am I more or less likely to suffer a severe neck injury wearing a neck brace. So what we see is a sample of riders who had exactly that kind of crash. As RichieW13 pointed out, this overrepresents riders who crashed and were injured, and underrepresents those who came away unscathed. There are plenty of unanswered questions about that group, as I readily acknowledged. But the target population is exactly the one that I want to know about when I'm deciding whether or not to wear a brace. I want to know the outcomes in those cases.
4
Bob_Ryan
Posts
28
Joined
4/30/2018
Location
Everett, WA US
12/7/2018 5:46pm
When the LEATTs first came out I tried to wear one but could not come to terms with it and felt they were overall more dangerous as I did not have enough mobility to move my head around to safely see things I needed to see.
As all the braces evolved I believe they are now a viable safety device and I wear one at all times. I happen to wear the LEATT but like the ATLAS also. With a low profile and the dual thoracic struts and the fact that they are designed to snap off at a specific pressure I believe they have come a long way. I believe the choice is a personal one and the advantages or disadvantages are up to each individual. I like that someone has at least compiled some numbers of some sort even though it may not be complete. Either way nobody should be damned for wearing or not wearing one.
MPJC
Posts
880
Joined
5/18/2017
Location
CA
Fantasy
592nd
12/7/2018 5:54pm
crusty_xx wrote:
I am serious. You need a total number, you can not make a statistic without a total number or any relation to a total number. Or...
I am serious.
You need a total number, you can not make a statistic without a total number or any relation to a total number.
Or at least I don't know how to compensate that with "simple math"...

That's like saying only 20 guys broke their back riding an electric bike.
So electric bikes must be safer (ignoring the fact that only a low percentage of MX riders use electric bikes).
MPJC wrote:
What matters is that the sample is sufficiently large and representative (you want it to be large so it can be representative). You can, for example...
What matters is that the sample is sufficiently large and representative (you want it to be large so it can be representative). You can, for example, generalize about the percentage of stars are likely to be the size of our sun if you observe tens of thousands of stars, even knowing full well that we haven’t a hot clue about how many stars there are. We would, of course, have to assume that unoberserved areas are similar to observed areas. If the population of unobserved riders is relevantly similar to the population of observered riders, then we can assume that the injury rates will be similar, however many there are. You find out how many are wearing neck braces by asking. If you ask 10,000 and 5,000 say that they wear one, then if your sample is unbiased you can say “if there are 1,000,000 riders, then 500,000 wear one”. This is how statistical generalizations work. All universal categorical statements are ultimately conditionals (“all S is P” means “if there is an S, then it is P”). You can work with conditionals without knowing the actual totals - you don’t have to know how many S there are. So the question is not: how many total riders are there, and how many of them wear neck braces? That’s too hard, and quite unnecessary. It is: how are we going to get a sample that represents the diversity of the population, however large it may be?
hoppsan wrote:
This is all true, but where in the report do you gather a number of what percentage of riders (from any sample-size, but the larger the...
This is all true, but where in the report do you gather a number of what percentage of riders (from any sample-size, but the larger the better) they presume ride with a neck brace, and in what way do they make use of that number in the conclusions they draw? This is an incredibly important number to have and a severe oversight in this report in my personal opinion, you are naturally free to convince me (and crusty_xx and whoever else who have brought this flaw up) otherwise.

Edit (perhaps this should have been in another post entirely...): I understand (or rather, I think I understand) that you are saying that it is okay to use the gathered data on the injured riders and simply use that to deduce the percentage of riders wearing a neck brace in total by assuming that the ratio is the same. That however, would possibly (and probably) skew the results heavily in either direction unless neck braces have no impact (negative or positive) on the injury rate what so ever. After all, if the reports conclusion is to be presumed correct, then the ratio of neck brace wearers who are severely injured compared to the ones who did not wear one would be a lot smaller than the same ratio among riders in total (since neck brace riders more often, according to this data, would escape injury and thus not need medical care).

I'm not saying that all of that data is without merit or interest, it surely is interesting and noteworthy, but it surely cannot be used to make any "this settles it" kind of statements. Well, according to me at least.
Just saw your edited post and yes, I think you understand what I'm saying. What you are saying about the data possibly being skewed sounds right to me as well. That is why more study of variable of the sort RichieW13 mentioned would be great. As it stands, this is pretty compelling prima facie evidence, other things being equal.
akillerwombat
Posts
2006
Joined
10/16/2013
Location
Los Angeles, CA US
12/7/2018 5:57pm Edited Date/Time 12/7/2018 5:58pm
MPJC wrote:
Yes, I see you're point, and it's a fair one. What we need to do is put it in the context of what it is we...
Yes, I see you're point, and it's a fair one. What we need to do is put it in the context of what it is we want to know, which is: If I have a bad crash, am I more or less likely to suffer a severe neck injury wearing a neck brace. So what we see is a sample of riders who had exactly that kind of crash. As RichieW13 pointed out, this overrepresents riders who crashed and were injured, and underrepresents those who came away unscathed. There are plenty of unanswered questions about that group, as I readily acknowledged. But the target population is exactly the one that I want to know about when I'm deciding whether or not to wear a brace. I want to know the outcomes in those cases.
The study didn't "over represent riders who crashed and were injured, and under represent those who came away unscathed"... it is solely about riders who crashed and were injured.

And the data provided shows that riders "who crashed and were injured" while wearing a neck brace faired far better than those who weren't.
6
crusty_xx
Posts
8550
Joined
6/8/2013
Location
CH
Fantasy
156th
12/7/2018 5:59pm Edited Date/Time 12/7/2018 6:15pm
MPJC wrote:
You guys can't be serious. The data specifies the total number, the number wearing a brace, and the number not wearing a brace, and calculates the...
You guys can't be serious. The data specifies the total number, the number wearing a brace, and the number not wearing a brace, and calculates the likelihood of death or injury of brace vs no brace on that basis, given the numbers of injuries or deaths occurring. Are you actually suggesting that you need a sample in which the number of brace users vs. non-brace users is equal - that you can't compensate for the differences with simple math?
crusty_xx wrote:
I am serious. You need a total number, you can not make a statistic without a total number or any relation to a total number. Or...
I am serious.
You need a total number, you can not make a statistic without a total number or any relation to a total number.
Or at least I don't know how to compensate that with "simple math"...

That's like saying only 20 guys broke their back riding an electric bike.
So electric bikes must be safer (ignoring the fact that only a low percentage of MX riders use electric bikes).
MPJC wrote:
What matters is that the sample is sufficiently large and representative (you want it to be large so it can be representative). You can, for example...
What matters is that the sample is sufficiently large and representative (you want it to be large so it can be representative). You can, for example, generalize about the percentage of stars are likely to be the size of our sun if you observe tens of thousands of stars, even knowing full well that we haven’t a hot clue about how many stars there are. We would, of course, have to assume that unoberserved areas are similar to observed areas. If the population of unobserved riders is relevantly similar to the population of observered riders, then we can assume that the injury rates will be similar, however many there are. You find out how many are wearing neck braces by asking. If you ask 10,000 and 5,000 say that they wear one, then if your sample is unbiased you can say “if there are 1,000,000 riders, then 500,000 wear one”. This is how statistical generalizations work. All universal categorical statements are ultimately conditionals (“all S is P” means “if there is an S, then it is P”). You can work with conditionals without knowing the actual totals - you don’t have to know how many S there are. So the question is not: how many total riders are there, and how many of them wear neck braces? That’s too hard, and quite unnecessary. It is: how are we going to get a sample that represents the diversity of the population, however large it may be?
nevermind, missed something in the OP text...

With "total" number I didn't mean that you need to know the number of all the riders on the planet who wear a brace, and those who don't.
I meant the total number of these patients (8529 in this case) - I never read these numbers...

sorry :>
1
JM485
Posts
5409
Joined
10/1/2013
Location
Davis, CA US
12/7/2018 6:01pm
Unless I'm missing something, this should address most of the statistical concerns brought up in this thread. This breaks things down by what percentage of riders who were under their care suffered a spinal injury based on whether they were wearing a brace or not. The sample size between brace wearers and non-brace wearers is relatively close, so this probably provides the best synopsis out of the whole article. From the wording this was obviously done with a result in mind, but the bottom line is this bit of data here paints a clear picture.
6
brocster
Posts
3611
Joined
6/9/2009
Location
Aliso Viejo, CA US
12/7/2018 6:01pm
MPJC wrote:
Yes, I see you're point, and it's a fair one. What we need to do is put it in the context of what it is we...
Yes, I see you're point, and it's a fair one. What we need to do is put it in the context of what it is we want to know, which is: If I have a bad crash, am I more or less likely to suffer a severe neck injury wearing a neck brace. So what we see is a sample of riders who had exactly that kind of crash. As RichieW13 pointed out, this overrepresents riders who crashed and were injured, and underrepresents those who came away unscathed. There are plenty of unanswered questions about that group, as I readily acknowledged. But the target population is exactly the one that I want to know about when I'm deciding whether or not to wear a brace. I want to know the outcomes in those cases.
The study didn't "over represent riders who crashed and were injured, and under represent those who came away unscathed"... it is solely about riders who crashed...
The study didn't "over represent riders who crashed and were injured, and under represent those who came away unscathed"... it is solely about riders who crashed and were injured.

And the data provided shows that riders "who crashed and were injured" while wearing a neck brace faired far better than those who weren't.
Thank you! ^^^^
1
crusty_xx
Posts
8550
Joined
6/8/2013
Location
CH
Fantasy
156th
12/7/2018 6:12pm
JM485 wrote:
Unless I'm missing something, this should address most of the statistical concerns brought up in this thread. This breaks things down by what percentage of riders...
Unless I'm missing something, this should address most of the statistical concerns brought up in this thread. This breaks things down by what percentage of riders who were under their care suffered a spinal injury based on whether they were wearing a brace or not. The sample size between brace wearers and non-brace wearers is relatively close, so this probably provides the best synopsis out of the whole article. From the wording this was obviously done with a result in mind, but the bottom line is this bit of data here paints a clear picture.
Yeah...
Just disregard everything I posted. I never read these numbers.

If the total is 8529, 4726 wear no brace and 3803 wear a brace then the statistic does make perfect sense.
I just saw the statistics with no relation to any population size of either side.

With that you can generalize, like MPJC says, and use these numbers representatively
2
MPJC
Posts
880
Joined
5/18/2017
Location
CA
Fantasy
592nd
12/7/2018 6:13pm
MPJC wrote:
Yes, I see you're point, and it's a fair one. What we need to do is put it in the context of what it is we...
Yes, I see you're point, and it's a fair one. What we need to do is put it in the context of what it is we want to know, which is: If I have a bad crash, am I more or less likely to suffer a severe neck injury wearing a neck brace. So what we see is a sample of riders who had exactly that kind of crash. As RichieW13 pointed out, this overrepresents riders who crashed and were injured, and underrepresents those who came away unscathed. There are plenty of unanswered questions about that group, as I readily acknowledged. But the target population is exactly the one that I want to know about when I'm deciding whether or not to wear a brace. I want to know the outcomes in those cases.
The study didn't "over represent riders who crashed and were injured, and under represent those who came away unscathed"... it is solely about riders who crashed...
The study didn't "over represent riders who crashed and were injured, and under represent those who came away unscathed"... it is solely about riders who crashed and were injured.

And the data provided shows that riders "who crashed and were injured" while wearing a neck brace faired far better than those who weren't.
Yes, astonishingly, a group outside of the target population was unrepresented. My phrasing was rather careless, and you're correction is correct.
Titanium
Posts
380
Joined
12/5/2018
Location
WI US
12/7/2018 6:17pm
DrSweden wrote:
It made sense on paper, during those pre testing (Leatt). I bough one day one, and have upgraded to newer model, have newer rode a moto...
It made sense on paper, during those pre testing (Leatt). I bough one day one, and have upgraded to newer model, have newer rode a moto without one after that. This is the report I was waiting for, if it's valid, as in true (I paid no time ot figure out who made it and why, paid by whom) to smash any doubts I had. While there are always new questions, science is to keep going, ask new question, nothing here suggests they didn't deliver on their promises. I think we have a lot of people still riding, having normal lives because of this device. But 100%? Nothing is.

THANK YOU!
Bingo! Me Too...
CASH476
Posts
445
Joined
2/27/2009
Location
Perth AU
12/7/2018 6:26pm
brimx153 wrote:
One more thing that was my took into account, is how many % wear neck braces. Here I'd say it's 80% don't And 20 % do...
One more thing that was my took into account, is how many % wear neck braces. Here I'd say it's 80% don't And 20 % do so there is going to be a higher avg of people falling off without them
Deja New wrote:
I thought that exact same thing too, but then if you read the article it says of 8529 recorded patients 55.5% (4726) had no brace 44.5...
I thought that exact same thing too, but then if you read the article it says of 8529 recorded patients 55.5% (4726) had no brace 44.5 (3803) had one. That gives some correlation to % of riders with and with out is not quite 50 50 of those that crashed and needed medical attention. so 80% to 20% is a long way off these stats.
Amazing how so many people will skim an article and have a pre conceived view of the results based on personal bias. The info was there in plain sight for everyone to see.

FYI I thought the exact same thing and had to re read the article to look for the sample size.
3
Wycked31
Posts
466
Joined
3/25/2014
Location
West Palm Beach, FL US
12/7/2018 7:27pm
My Leatt broke my back in 2011. Broke three verts because the back whale tail dig into the dirt and put all the pressure on my spine. I lost feeling in my chest down for eight days until the doctors were able to put my vert back together and remove the bones that pinched my spinal cord.

I think they are a good piece of protection with the proper design. My early stage Leatt just rested on the spinal column which puts all the force on a 1” x 1.5” space. The brace needs to rest on the shoulder blades or more surface area of the back
1
2
Johnny Ringo
Posts
5567
Joined
1/11/2016
Location
Tombstone, AZ US
12/7/2018 7:37pm Edited Date/Time 12/7/2018 7:37pm
mattyhamz2 wrote:
What about the riders that died from casing a jump and their neck braces hitting the bars shoving into their throats? I personally will never wear...
What about the riders that died from casing a jump and their neck braces hitting the bars shoving into their throats?


I personally will never wear another brace with the front portion closed. Had a Leatt shove into my throat during a crash and never wore one again. I did wear an Omega for a bit which was much nicer and was open in the front, but wouldn't work all that great with a chest protector.
Are you the same guy that called into pulp and went off about this? I’ve never had an issue like you’re describing. I’m not saying it didn’t happen but I feel yours might be an isolated incident?

I’m not so much worried about my throat as I am my spinal cord.

This is a polarizing topic for sure
1
mattyhamz2
Posts
10886
Joined
7/6/2015
Location
So Cal, CA US
Fantasy
846th
12/7/2018 7:44pm
mattyhamz2 wrote:
What about the riders that died from casing a jump and their neck braces hitting the bars shoving into their throats? I personally will never wear...
What about the riders that died from casing a jump and their neck braces hitting the bars shoving into their throats?


I personally will never wear another brace with the front portion closed. Had a Leatt shove into my throat during a crash and never wore one again. I did wear an Omega for a bit which was much nicer and was open in the front, but wouldn't work all that great with a chest protector.
Are you the same guy that called into pulp and went off about this? I’ve never had an issue like you’re describing. I’m not saying it...
Are you the same guy that called into pulp and went off about this? I’ve never had an issue like you’re describing. I’m not saying it didn’t happen but I feel yours might be an isolated incident?

I’m not so much worried about my throat as I am my spinal cord.

This is a polarizing topic for sure
No that’s not me. Never even knew someone called in about that issue. I’m curious as to what he said though. I didn’t have a crash like I described, my crash was quite different. All I know is without a neck brace I would not have broken 3 of my upper ribs nor would I have had an issue with the brace pushing into my throat causing me breathing issues for a few minutes.

With that said, braces completely have a place and some designs are better than other. I would love to get another omega neck brace that had an open front section and some other features that I believe were beneficial.

Post a reply to: 10 Year Neck Brace Study Results

The Latest