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

[Jealoushe]

Enjoying the replies, thanks.

[Wanderosa]

@OverandOnward

Just IMO -

To be valid to me, a ‘safety vest study’ needs to be done in the same way that they do studies on car air bags, of air vests AND every other type of safety vest that is frequently found on active eventers.

That is, in a lab, with crash test dummies or whatever they use these days to gather data that is systematic and comparable. The same forces can be applied in the same way to achieve truly comparable data. And of course they need to look at different kinds of force applied in different ways, designing the tests to be as close as possible to the kinds of situations that most often occur on course (guess that will need some video examples).

Question #1 is exactly what does each type of vest does under force. Question #2, 3, 4 and etc. would be different types of force applied in different ways.

I do not believe that data gathered by the FEI is ever going to provide more than a directional pointer. No matter what the FEI records, it can’t answer more specific questions about what the vests do and don’t do. In fact I’d consider the FEI data very nearly anecdotal. It has some worth, but it can’t be exact.

U

That’s along the lines of what I thinking. An adult re-rider at our barn fell over a X-rail and fractured a disc. From what people who saw it happen described; she landed on her feet with her arm around the standard, facing the approach to the jump. She didn’t appear to get knocked into the standard (which was a single and not a heavy wing standard), and it was a 15.2hh horse going at a slow trot. I’m guessing that she probably reached for the standard to catch herself and a twist was created in her spine, making it especially suseptible to the force generated on landing. If I’m correct in my speculation about the nature of the fall, it’s doubtful that her wearing even a standard safety vest would have changed the outcome.

Buuuuuut, here’s a thought. I started poking around looking at motorcycle racing protective gear. It’s worlds more sophisticated in design. No doubt most of us in the US have seen motorcyclists wearing a Kevlar protective vest. Racers apparently use a spine protector that slips into the back of the vest. It’s designed to support and limit spinal mobility in a fall. The Motorcycle Legal Foundation notes that increased soft tissue damage can occur in the areas the edge of the spinal protector contacts in an accident. But they’re still standard equipment in racing because everyone would rather deal with some bruised intercostal muscles than a severed spine.

Could a safety device like that have helped in the fall that i described above? What effect does overal rider fitness have in an accident? The laws for extended rear facing car seats came about as a result of crash lab research with volunteer subjects. For years, the assumption was that it was the degree of muscle strength that mattered. Then, it dawned on them that the volunteer subjects were big, burly military guys. But their strong muscles didn’t prevent whiplash injury. So their heads were obviously moving in a crash. They just didn’t suffer the internal decapitations evident in infants based on data from real life crashes. Bingo. It had to be the increased bone density possessed by adults that made the difference.

how much do we really know about any riding safety vest until some group starts putting them through lab testing? It’s quite possible that different riders have different needs in safety gear.

[banmharcach]

From the looks of photos from Luhmuhlen, the XC pinneys are sleeveless jerseys? They appear to be pretty snug and might “contain” or at least restrict the inflation of an airvest. Perhaps someone who saw falls in person could confirm whether or not they simply tear (or perhaps the airvests aren’t even in use).

[KellyS]

@JER

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

I don’t want to get off topic, but as a medical editor who works for an academic publisher, saying academic publishing is corrupt is so untrue and somewhat ignorant. JER, I’m so disappointed because I’ve would have considered you smarter than this kind of statement.

“Breaking its stranglehold” means sharing content against copyright, which hurts everyone, including the authors. There are many legitimate ways to get access to papers if they are not open access, but it takes a little more work. Sadly many people would rather do it the easy and illegal way (even academics admit that they used SciHub [which illegally shares copyrighted content] rather than get a paper through their academic library).

Without academic publishers–in case this case Elsevier–the research discussed here, which has been peer reviewed and vetted by researchers not involved in the study nor affiliated with its authors, institution, or funding, would likely not be available. We all acknowledge more research is needed on this topic, but how is quality research generated without a supporting infrastructure? It’s not as simple as the authors simply posting it online (and, no, preprints do not provide the needed peer review that supporters tout).

It amazes me how people who work hard in their own jobs think those of us who work in academic publishing should do so for free and make the resulting content free. None of us have chosen this career to get rich–we do it because we are hoping to make the world a better place by getting essential research created, validated and reviewed, edited and produced, indexed so that it can be found, and then stored in perpetuity and corrected/updated as new data comes to light.

The PDF of this article costs $35! That’s it! How many people pay more than that to take a lesson or go to a horse show or watch FEI TV? Do you know how much it costs to produce a research article to the point where you can easily download it as a finished PDF? As noted above, publishing research as subscription content is not at all a lucrative endeavor.

Anyway, sorry for my rant! It’s unusual to see such an ugly statement made here among the educated posters on this board. Funnily enough, I’m leaving tomorrow morning to speak at a library conference about academic publishing, so this topic is at the forefront of my mind.

[KellyS]

@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.

The Author Original Manuscript can be freely shared by the authors, although publishers ask that authors include the citation and DOI upon publication.

The Accepted Manuscript (peer reviewed but not the Version of Record) can be also be shared by the authors but not on commercial websites (eg, pharmaceutical companies). Again, publishers ask that authors include the citation and DOI upon publication.

Publishers also allow Green Open Access, which allows authors to post the AOM or AM manuscript to a subject or institutional repository, although sometimes embargoes will apply. NIH-funded research is automatically uploaded to a repository upon publication and freely available to access.

These policies may vary publisher to publisher, but there are several ways to legally share your work upon publication and publishers are more than happy to tell you (and their websites will also provide this information).

[KellyS]

@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.

I can’t speak for all publishers, but it is common practice to provide each author a large number of free eprints (links to online PDF of the final, or Version of Record, manuscript) upon publication.

Okay, I’m off! I hope some of this was helpful.

[IFG]

@KellyS

I don’t want to get off topic, but as a medical editor who works for an academic publisher, saying academic publishing is corrupt is so untrue and somewhat ignorant. JER, I’m so disappointed because I’ve would have considered you smarter than this kind of statement.

“Breaking its stranglehold” means sharing content against copyright, which hurts everyone, including the authors. There are many legitimate ways to get access to papers if they are not open access, but it takes a little more work. Sadly many people would rather do it the easy and illegal way (even academics admit that they used SciHub [which illegally shares copyrighted content] rather than get a paper through their academic library).

Without academic publishers–in case this case Elsevier–the research discussed here, which has been peer reviewed and vetted by researchers not involved in the study nor affiliated with its authors, institution, or funding, would likely not be available. We all acknowledge more research is needed on this topic, but how is quality research generated without a supporting infrastructure? It’s not as simple as the authors simply posting it online (and, no, preprints do not provide the needed peer review that supporters tout).

It amazes me how people who work hard in their own jobs think those of us who work in academic publishing should do so for free and make the resulting content free. None of us have chosen this career to get rich–we do it because we are hoping to make the world a better place by getting essential research created, validated and reviewed, edited and produced, indexed so that it can be found, and then stored in perpetuity and corrected/updated as new data comes to light.

The PDF of this article costs $35! That’s it! How many people pay more than that to take a lesson or go to a horse show or watch FEI TV? Do you know how much it costs to produce a research article to the point where you can easily download it as a finished PDF? As noted above, publishing research as subscription content is not at all a lucrative endeavor.

Anyway, sorry for my rant! It’s unusual to see such an ugly statement made here among the educated posters on this board. Funnily enough, I’m leaving tomorrow morning to speak at a library conference about academic publishing, so this topic is at the forefront of my mind.

I agree with your rant. That is why I suggested that the person who posted the article take it down.

[BayAreaRider]

@OverandOnward

This article is about a 2012 demonstration of air vests at the USEA convention.
https://eventingnation.com/emsa-air-vest-presentations-from-point-two-and-hit-air/

It sounds as if there is some sort of test data out there. However, it doesn’t seem to be on the Point Two website, and I can’t imagine why they wouldn’t include it if they had it.

It sounds as if you are wearing only the air vest, and are not wearing a standard safety vest underneath the air vest. At least one air vest distributor does say that the air vest can be used with or without a standard safety vest. (The only one I looked at.)

As I understand it, under the USEF/USEA Eventing Rules, isn’t the regular vest required, with or without the air vest? I was under the impression that, under the rules, the air vest was an extra layer of protection. Not the only layer. Re eventing rules. Is that right?

I do know of non-eventers who are wearing just the air vest. I wonder about the level of difference in protection with and without the regular vest. I’m sure two vests are safer, but I wonder if it is enough safer to make the extra expense and wardrobe desirable.

I was looking for their data as well.

i don’t event. I ride leisurely but with a vest at all times.

[BayAreaRider]

“Further, FEI reported the number of falls as a percentage of starters for each level of competition from 2014 to 2017 to be 4.8% for one-star competitors, 5.4% for two-star, 6.8% for three-star, and 13.3% for four-star.[SUP]4”[/SUP]

So is there a correlation between riding at a higher level and serious falls? If so then are we to say people shouldn’t be riding 4 star?

[L00kAtMeN0w]

@BayAreaRider

“Further, FEI reported the number of falls as a percentage of starters for each level of competition from 2014 to 2017 to be 4.8% for one-star competitors, 5.4% for two-star, 6.8% for three-star, and 13.3% for four-star.[SUP]4”[/SUP]

So is there a correlation between riding at a higher level and serious falls? If so then are we to say people shouldn’t be riding 4 star?

I think it is worth noting here that FEI increased its qualification process for the upper levels recently, probably as a result of these types of stats. I can’t remember the details, but I remember it being discussed as one of the reasons for the smaller KY3DE field this year.

[riderboy]

@Jealoushe

A question for all those reading. Based on all the information we have available on these vests, do you or would you feel comfortable using these vests, knowing fully there is no research on their actual safety influence? If so, why?

I wear one. I’ve had two XC falls wearing them, both schooling training/prelim level fences, about 10 years apart. I hit the ground hard both times and am convinced the air vest softened the blow considerably. Anecdotal to be sure, and reflective of my own personal experience and worthy of a disclaimer of non-evidence of the first order. If one wants to be totally safe then perhaps one should not ride a horse. Not trying to be a smart*ss, but seriously there’s only so much one can do. Shame the Exo vest never panned out.

[vineyridge]

I thought BE or some British organization did some air vest tests a couple of years ago.

[riderboy]

I suspect this will be studied for quite some time, it seems to me to be a very complex issue with more rider/horse/fence/footing combinations and permutations than Carter’s has pills. I think Reed is best to speak to all of that. If the air vest is responsible for an increase in the injury/fatality rate it would be nice to have a specific mechanism of how that happens. There are things that perhaps “make sense” on the surface but may not hold up to real world testing. I know neck injuries for example can be direct compression ‘lawn dart’ injuries or hyperextension/hyperflexion type injuries. I don’t know anything that will save you from a rotational fall except luck.

[Auburn]

@Jealoushe

I had often wondered this. I saw this shared on Faceobok but can’t recall what page now. The comments were interesting, and a lot of air vest users being in total denial of the results. Actually arguing that air vests are safer, based on absolutely no research. So much propaganda pushing the vests with no research previously. Hopefully this study can jump start some others.

I really hope I can get the full research article.

I shared this on Facebook and had quite a discussion going. It was beginning to sound like a COTH thread, where I got out the popcorn. There was a person, whom I know, who was arguing with Deltawave. She was treating Deltawave like she was ignorant. :eek:

[Jealoushe]

@Auburn

I shared this on Facebook and had quite a discussion going. It was beginning to sound like a COTH thread, where I got out the popcorn. There was a person, whom I know, who was arguing with Deltawave. She was treating Deltawave like she was ignorant. :eek:

Is she an expert?

[IFG]

@Jealoushe

Is she an expert?

Deltawave is a cardiologist, so someone who is familiar with reading studies. She also, I believe, worked with the USEA on some horse heart studies.

[Mouse_amp_Bay]

@Jealoushe

Is she an expert?

Not quite RAyers but pretty darn close. :winkgrin:

[cour10ay]

I was an early commenter on this thread, saying I was considering getting an air vest in the near future and that I wasn’t sure either way about the evidence presented in the study at the top of the thread.

Anyway, just chiming back in with an update for those interested in potential-air-vest-adopters’ thoughts…

I am actually not sure I am considering getting one anymore, partly from reading later comments here and partly from recent experience. I suffered an XC fall with my horse in competition a couple weeks ago while wearing my protective vest but no air vest since I hadn’t gotten one yet. We were competing at preliminary level. The footing was quite wet and my horse slipped on takeoff at a ditch+brush similar to a weldon wall I guess, anyway we flipped over the jump (there is disagreement as to whether my horse flipped), breaking it, and I landed on my head, kind of at the front/top if it, and then flipped over onto my back unconscious. My horse fell to the right, I fell to the left, so we didn’t collide with one another during the fall. We both walked away. I still can’t believe it, we are so lucky.

Reading the comments in this thread specifically about spinal fractures, I can’t help but imagine that an air vest could have rendered my fall more serious by immobilizing my spine during the impact to my head, but I’m not a medical professional so I don’t know. Or maybe it would have been fine since the ground wasn’t hard, again, I don’t know. Either way, seems like that ~$600 could be better spent elsewhere.

[deltawave]

Thank goodness you are both OK. I think the “I don’t know” part of your last paragraph says it all. Until we DO know, with SOME degree of confidence, we should resist making assumptions that more gear is always better. “This sounds like a good idea” is not enough. I sincerely hope more evidence is forthcoming and if/when a system is convincingly shown to do more good than harm I will loudly and publicly support them and buy one immediately.

[riderboy]

@deltawave

Thank goodness you are both OK. I think the “I don’t know” part of your last paragraph says it all. Until we DO know, with SOME degree of confidence, we should resist making assumptions that more gear is always better. “This sounds like a good idea” is not enough. I sincerely hope more evidence is forthcoming and if/when a system is convincingly shown to do more good than harm I will loudly and publicly support them and buy one immediately.

Exactly. Horse people have to be one of the most superstitious groups of people out there. Quite often doing things based more on tradition and personal experience than science. Usually because there is no science…yet.