Impact of facial protection on head (non-concussive) and neck injuries
| Author(s) and journal | Study findings |
| LaPrade et al,4 Am J Sports Med, 1995 | Lower rate of facial lacerations during games in the face shield cohort compared with the NFS cohort (14.7 to 15.1 injuries per 1000 player-hours and 21.8 injuries per 1000 player-hours, respectively) |
| Lower rate of facial lacerations during practice in the face shield cohort compared with the NFS cohort (0.0 to 0.2 injuries per 1000 player-hours and 0.6 injuries per 1000 player-hours, respectively) | |
| Benson et al,13 JAMA, 1999 | Significantly fewer head and facial injuries with FFS compared with HFS (p<0.001, RR 2.52, CI 1.73 to 3.68) |
| No significant difference in risk of neck injury between the cohorts (p = 0.78, CI 0.43 to 3.16) | |
| Stuart et al,3 Am J Sports Med, 2002 | Significantly decreased injury rate in the FFP and PFP cohorts compared with the NFP cohort (p<0.001) |
| Players in the NFP cohort sustained injuries at a rate more than twice that of the PFP cohort and almost seven times more than those in the FFP cohort | |
| Stevens et al,10 J Sci Med Sport, 2006 | Lowest rate of injury in the FFS cohort compared with the HFS and NFS cohorts (23.2, 73.5 and 158.9 per 1000 player-hours, respectively) |
| No significant difference in rate of neck injuries between the cohorts |
FFP, full facial protection; FFS, full face shield; HFS, half face shield; NFP, no facial protection; NFS, no face shield; PFP, partial facial protection; RR, relative risk.