Finally! An Air Vest Study...Air Vest Users Should Read This!

[HiJumpGrrl]

@JER

Haven’t read the paper because I’m not in academia, a fact which will surprise exactly zero of you.

Could someone tell me how they define ‘serious’ injury?

This is part of the problem with the data, too. Injuries were classified as mild/moderate/severe by the Chief Medical Officer of the event where they occurred, without details about what the injuries were.

Quote from the paper:
“Fall injury severity in the FEI data was reported as no injury; slight injury; serious or fatal injury. Rider injury severity was confirmed by the Chief Medical Officer at the event and further information was requested from the national federation where the injury was recorded as serious or unknown;24 however, no precise definition of the types of injuries included in each injury severity category were provided in the reports.”

[JER]

@HiJumpGrrl

This is part of the problem with the data, too. Injuries were classified as mild/moderate/severe by the Chief Medical Officer of the event where they occurred, without details about what the injuries were.

Thanks HiJump!

That sounds pretty vague and hazy. Would rather there be some precision in their classifications. I mean, to some, a broken collarbone is ‘serious’ while to others - probably most eventers - it’s not a big deal.

[Jealoushe]

I hope this OK to share these.

[IFG]

So I am going to be the poophead who says that you are violating copyright law and says to take it down. Sorry, my university views these violations very seriously. You can be prosecuted for sharing.

[Moderator_1]

We removed the full text share of the article since it was available via paid subscription.

[FrittSkritt]

I have access to it if anyone, um, you know.

[JER]

Academic publishing is so corrupt. I applaud everyone who takes actions to break its stranglehold.

[RAyers]

I agree!! But it is still the lesser of the evils, given what predatory publishers exhibit. Those are even worse and do a lot of damage to scientific integrity.

[Jealoushe]

I thought those who made the research were happy to share, since they don’t make any money off it through the actual sites?

very unfortunate.

[Jersey_Fresh]

I read the paper, and while its a good start to have research like this, I think it opens the door for more questions than answers. I guess my biggest question, and perhaps my toddler-mom exhausted brain just missed it, but I couldn’t find any where were they stated they looked at falls only on XC. From they way its written, they looked at complied data set from falls taken in all phases of FEI level events and if that is true it would skew the data a bit as you would only wear an air vest during XC which is also where you are most likely to have a severe injury. They sort of jump around in the paper so its not super clear if “no air vest” means body protector or just no air vest

I think it would be useful to look at the the data that the FEI provided and further break it down by rider’s previous falls, type of standard vets worn under the air vest (BETA 3 or not), and other factors but I completely understand the limitations of having someone else collect data for your study.

Regardless, its a good start to much needed research into the safety of the sport. Not enough to convince me one way or another, but a good start.

[devvie_continued]

@Jealoushe

I thought those who made the research were happy to share, since they don’t make any money off it through the actual sites?

very unfortunate.

They may be happy to share, but typically the copyright is owned by the publisher/the journal, so the authors must/ought to respect the copyright.

[RAyers]

@Jersey Fresh

…From they way its written, they looked at complied data set from falls taken in all phases of FEI level events and if that is true it would skew the data a bit as you would only wear an air vest during XC which is also where you are most likely to have a severe injury…

It is clear that they only looked at comparative data. That means they don’t simply just take random numbers. It is clear in the Mat and Meth that they used data taken from roughly a “paired” cohort where riders on the same XC courses fell and either were wearing an air vest or not. The data is clearly labeled as obtained from Reference 4 which is the FEI public database for falls on XC at competitions. The FEI does not collect data on stadium or dressage falls therefore it is all XC where protective gear is required.

Thus, this is a direct comparison of wearing an air vest versus no air vest on XC.

[Grasshopper]

@devvie_continued

They may be happy to share, but typically the copyright is owned by the publisher/the journal, so the authors must/ought to respect the copyright.

My understanding of the “typical” arrangement is that the publisher has exclusive rights to the final, published article, sometimes for a limited time period. However, the author(s) retains their rights in their drafts and can share those (and many are happy to do so upon request).

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming…

[RAyers]

Yeah. We sign the copyright of the final article over to the publisher while we retain all rights to the actual work and data. Therefore, we can distribute data sets and analysis but not direct copies of published work other than to explicit users, e.g. researchers who may cite or utilize such work in their research. But even in that case there still is a license agreement with the publisher or sharing agreements with other institutions who have licensing rights.

[IFG]

If your work is sponsored by NIH, you deposit a draft of the submitted article (not typeset and no last-minute corrections) into PubMed, and it becomes open access. https://publicaccess.nih.gov/

[IFG]

Also, in the old days, you purchased paper “reprints” of your article which you were allowed to send to people. These days, if people request copies of a paper, I send them the pdf. Most of my articles I pay to have open access, so that is not an issue. Yes, most journals charge the authors for that privilege.

[samerwin88]

If anyone needs a copy… DM me

[NoSuchPerson]

@Jealoushe

I thought those who made the research were happy to share, since they don’t make any money off it through the actual sites?

If I want a copy of the final published version of one of my papers, I have to pay to download it just like anybody else. Unless it’s in a journal that I have access to, such as one published by one of the professional societies I belong to. If I receive a personal request from an individual, I am happy to provide a copy, which I am allowed to do. But, I am not allowed to, e.g., post the contents on a public forum.

[RAyers]

Ahhhhhh, reprints. I have cases of them in storage. You used to get 100 (at least in my preferred journals) at no charge.

[Sticky_Situation]

@RAyers … I’ve read the full text and glanced through the FEI statistics and as you said, it seems that the FEI only gathers information about falls on XC, not showjumping (or dressage!) … so logically the data used in the study would include only XC falls.

But the authors put right in the discussion “The inclusion of falls in all eventing disciplines, and not just the cross country phase of eventing, may explain the lower fall percentages in our study” (as compared to the French study on “effectiveness of air jackets in falls during the cross country phase of eventing.”) What am I missing here? Why would the authors include that statement if the FEI data only includes falls which occur on XC?

Also … it doesn’t seem that they broke air vest/no air vest data down by level. I wouldn’t be surprised if there are fewer air vests overall worn at the 1* level compared to the 4* level … so that could be another confounding factor. Regardless, nothing here makes me inclined to change my non-air-vest wearing ways, even with the weaknesses in the study.