Table 4 Study characteristics of articles regarding concussion and face shield use
StudySportStudy designDuration (seasons)Study populationExposure measuresOutcome measuresResults
Stevens (2006)80Ice hockeyCS1 (2001–2 season)National Hockey League PlayersHalf shield (visor) use vs no visor useConcussion, non-concussion injuries and eye injuriesNo statistically significant differences in concussion rates between players who wore visors vs those who did not (OR: 1.39, 95% CI: 0.71 to 2.71)
(n = 787)Players who wore visors did not miss significantly more games than players who did not wear a visor (p>0.05)
Benson (1999)2Ice hockeyPC1 (1997–8 season)22 CIAU teams (n = 642)Full vs half face shield useConcussion incidenceNo statistically significant risk differences between players wearing half shields and full face shields (p = 0.90)
Benson (2002)39Ice hockeyPC1 (1997–8 season)22 CIAU teams (n = 642)Full vs half face shield useConcussion Severity measured by time loss due to injuryPlayers who wore half shields missed significantly more time loss (2.4 times) than players who wore full face shields (4.07 sessions, 95% CI: 3.48 to 4.74 vs 1.71 sessions, 95% CI: 1.32 to 2.18 respectively)
Stuart (2002)79Ice hockeyPC1United States Junior A hockey players(n = 282)Facial protection (full, partial, none)Concussion, head, face and neck injuriesConcussions occurred in 4 players wearing no facial protection, 5 players wearing visors and 2 players wearing full face shields; these difference were not statistically significant
Lemair (2007)81N/ALabN/ASurrogate headform3 commercial model full face shields (cages) vs 3 visorsPeak accelerations (PA) within the surrogate headformFacial protection substantially reduced PA during blunt impacts within threshold safety limits (below 300 g)Cages showed lower PA than visorsDifferences between models were observed during repeated impacts and impact site
  • PC, prospective cohort; CS, case-series; CIAU, Canadian Inter-University Athletics Union; Lab, laboratory.