Table 4

Impact of facial protection on concussion

Author(s) and journalStudy findings
Benson et al,13 JAMA, 1999No significant difference in the number of concussions between FFS and HFS cohorts (p = 0.90, RR 0.97, CI 0.61 to 1.54)
Benson et al,14 Br J Sports Med, 2002No significant difference in risk of concussion between FFS and HFS cohorts (p = 0.90, RR 0.97, CI 0.61 to 1.54)
Players who did sustain a concussion in FFS cohort missed fewer sessions than those in the HFS group (1.7, CI 1.32 to 2.18 and 4.07, CI 3.48 to 4.74, respectively)
No time lost following concussion in players with FFS wearing mouth guards compared to 1.80 missed sessions in players with FFS not wearing mouth guards (CI 1.38 to 2.34)
Stuart et al,3 Am J Sports Med, 2002No significant difference in concussion rate between FFP versus PFP versus NFP cohorts (p = 0.58, p = 0.11)
  • 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.