Report for: Use of Head Guards in AIBA Boxing Tournaments—A Cross-Sectional Observational Study

Title	Use of Head Guards in AIBA Boxing Tournaments—A Cross-Sectional Observational Study
Published in	Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine, January 2017
DOI	10.1097/jsm.0000000000000322
Pubmed ID	27116592
Authors	Michael P. Loosemore, Charles F. Butler, Abdelhamid Khadri, David McDonagh, Vimal A. Patel, Julian E. Bailes
Abstract	This study looks at the changes in injuries after the implementation of a new rule by the International Boxing Association (AIBA) to remove head guards from its competitions. A cross-sectional observational study performed prospectively. This brief report examines the removal of head guards in 2 different ways. The first was to examine the stoppages due to blows to the head by comparing World Series Boxing (WSB), without head guards, to other AIBA competitions with head guards. Secondly, we examined the last 3 world championships: 2009 and 2011 (with head guards) and 2013 (without head guards). World Series Boxing and AIBA world championship boxing. Boxers from WSB and AIBA world championships. The information was recorded by ringside medical physicians. Stoppages per 10 000 rounds; stoppages per 1000 hours. Both studies show that the number of stoppages due to head blows was significantly decreased without head guards. The studies also showed that there was a notable increase in cuts. Removing head guards may reduce the already small risk of acute brain injury in amateur boxing.

View on publisher site Alert me about new mentions

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Geographical breakdown

Country	Count	As %
United Kingdom	4	22%
United States	3	17%
Canada	2	11%
Thailand	1	6%
Finland	1	6%
Unknown	7	39%

Demographic breakdown

Type	Count	As %
Members of the public	15	83%
Scientists	1	6%
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals)	1	6%
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors)	1	6%

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country	Count	As %
United States	2	3%
Unknown	72	97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status	Count	As %
Student > Master	14	19%
Student > Bachelor	14	19%
Student > Ph. D. Student	7	9%
Student > Doctoral Student	5	7%
Student > Postgraduate	5	7%
Other	17	23%
Unknown	12	16%

Readers by discipline	Count	As %
Medicine and Dentistry	19	26%
Sports and Recreations	17	23%
Nursing and Health Professions	6	8%
Unspecified	4	5%
Engineering	4	5%
Other	9	12%
Unknown	15	20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 56. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 October 2021.

All research outputs

#599,895

of 21,735,696 outputs

Outputs from Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine

#87

of 1,698 outputs

Outputs of similar age

#12,184

of 280,000 outputs

Outputs of similar age from Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine

of 19 outputs

Altmetric has tracked 21,735,696 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.

So far Altmetric has tracked 1,698 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.

Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 280,000 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.

We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.

Wolters Kluwer

Article Metrics

Use of Head Guards in AIBA Boxing Tournaments—A Cross-Sectional Observational Study

About this Attention Score

Mentioned by

Citations

Readers on

Twitter Demographics

Geographical breakdown

Demographic breakdown

Mendeley readers

Geographical breakdown

Demographic breakdown

Attention Score in Context