Table 2 Summary of critically reviewed literature by author and title
From: The impact of body armor on physical performance of law enforcement personnel: a systematic review
Title/Author | Participants | Equipment | Variables | Intervention | Main Findings | CAS a (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Caldwell, et. al. 2011 [33] The interaction of body armour, low-intensity exercise, and hot-humid conditions on physiological strain and cognitive function | n = 9 Mean ± SD Age: 27.3 ± 5.43 years Mean ± SD Height: 180.3 ± 5.11 cm Mean ± SD Weight: 79.4 ± 11.3 kg Healthy, Active Male University students (AU b) | AU standard issue kevlar vest with ceramic plate inserts (6.07 kg) Rabintex industries ballistic helmet (1.29 kg) | IND d: Loaded or unloaded condition, environmental conditions (Hot-Humid) DEP e: Body temp, HR k, RPEf, vigilance, reaction time | 2.5 h simulated patrol in hot-humid conditions | • Loaded condition did not induce heat illness (no core temp. >39.5 °C) • Progressive divergence between loaded and unloaded cardiovascular strain (p = 0.01) • Armour significantly increases RPE f (p = 0.02) • No significant change in cognitive function between loaded &unloaded conditions (p > 0.05) | 67.9 |
Carbone, et. al. 2014 [5] The impact of load carriage on the marksmanship of the tactical police officer: a pilot study | n = 6 Mean ± SD Age: 33.3 ± 4.13 years Mean ± SD Height: 177.0 ± 11.8 cm Mean ± SD Weight: 89.2 ± 13.2 kg Mean ± SD years of experience in the police force: 10.9 ± 5.1 year Active male officers of a police Tactical Operations Unit (AU b) | Body armour, helmet, primary (M4) and secondary (9 mm Glock) weapons (22.8 ± 1.8 kg) | IND d: Loaded or unloaded condition DEP e: Marksmanship accuracy | Police marksmanship test: one static shoot, and one tactical mobile shoot | • No significant difference in shooting results between loaded and unloaded conditions (p > 0.05) | 71.4 |
Carlton, et. al. 2014 [14] The Impact of Occupational Load Carriage on the Mobility of the Tactical Police Officer | n = 6 Mean ± SD Age: 33.3 ± 4.13 years Mean ± SD Height: 177.0 ± 11.8 cm Mean ± SD Weight: 89.2 ± 13.2 kg Mean ± SD years of experience in the police force: 10.9 ± 5.1 year Active male officers of a police Tactical Operations Unit (AU b) | Body armour, helmet, primary (M4) and secondary (9 mm Glock) weapons (22.8 ± 1.8 kg) | IND d: Loaded or unloaded condition DEP e: Speed and mobility during test course | 10 m in line sprint 25 m simulated patrol Two 10 m dummy (70 kg) drags | • Time to complete the tactical movement task increased with load (mean ± SD time unloaded = 18.59 ± 2.44 s: loaded = 19.89 ± 1.61 s) and officers were significantly slower (p < 0.01) during the dummy drag mobility task when loaded (mean ± SD time unloaded = 9.29 ± 0.53 s: loaded = 10.25 ± 0.77 s) | 71.4 |
Dempsey, et. al. 2013 [3] Impact of police body armour and equipment on mobility | n = 52 Mean ± SD Age: 37 ± 9.16 years Mean ± SD Height: 180.68 ± 6.12 years Mean ± SD Weight: 90.21 ± 11.59 Mean ± SD BMI v: 27.61 SD 3.09 Healthy Male Police Officers (NZ c) | Fitted stab-resistant body armour and simulated duty gear (7.65 ± 0.73 kg) | IND d: Loaded or unloaded condition, fatigued or unfatigued state DEP e: Balance, grappling, functional mobility task performance, chin up repetitions | Timed stabilometer balance task Simulated vehicle exit/sprint Grappling bag exercise Max rep. Of chin-ups | • Time off balance increased 2.42 s on average when loaded (p < 0.001) • Average acceleration time increased 0.28 s on average when loaded (p < 0.001) • Average TTC h for grappling bag exercise increased 1.89 s on average when loaded (p < 0.001) • 2.86 Fewer chin-ups were completed when loaded (p < 0.001) | 78.6 |
Dempsey, et.al 2014 [36] Body Armour: the effect of load exercise and distraction on landing forces | n = 52 Mean ± SD Age: 37 ± 9.16 years Mean ± SD Height: 180.68 ± 6.12 years Mean ± SD Weight: 90.21 ± 11.59 Mean ± SD BMI v: 27.61 SD 3.09 Healthy Male Police Officers (NZ c) | Fitted stab-resistant body armour and simulated duty gear (7.65 ± 0.73 kg) | IND d: Loaded or unloaded condition, fatigued or unfatigued state DEP e: Ground reaction force, jump height | Fatigued and non-fatigued force plate measurements of a max vertical jump, drop landing, predictable and unpredictable jump tasks following drop landing | • Jump height reduced when loaded (p < 0.001) • GRF increased when loaded (p < 0.001) • Fatigue contributes additional GRF and jump height loss (p < 0.001) | 85.7 |
Larsen, et. al. 2012 [34] Body Armour, Performance, and Physiology During Repeated High-Intensity Work Tasks | n = 11 Mean ± SD Age: 22 ± 2 years Mean ± SD Height: 185 ± 10 cm Mean ± SD Weight: 77 ± 14 kg Healthy, recreationally active males University Students (US p) | Protective chest plate with integral extremity protection (16.98 ± 1 kg) Military helmet (0.5 kg) | IND d: Armoured or unarmoured condition DEP e: Shooting accuracy, vaulting, crawling, box lifting, body temperature | Timed trial of military task circuit course | • Body Temperature increased in the armoured condition (0.50 ± 0.41 °C) (p = 0.02) • RPE f was 1 ± 0 higher in the armoured condition (p < 0.01) • No other test variables reached statistical significance (p > 0.05) | 75.0 |
Lenton, et. al. 2015 [35] The effects of military body armour on trunk and hip kinematics during performance of manual handling tasks | n = 16 Mean ± SD Age: 22 ± 1 Mean ± SD Height: 180 ± 8 cm Mean ± SD Weight: 74.9 ± 7.5 kg Healthy, active male University students (AU b) | Modular Combat Armour System (8.6 kg) Tiered Body Armour System 1(7.0 kg) Tiered Body Armour System 2(7.3 kg) Tiered Body Armour System 3(6.4 kg) | IND d: Loaded or unloaded condition, body armour configuration worn DEP e: Average flexion angle, trunk rotation ROM w | Ammunition box lift and place Ammunition box Lower and place Sandbag lift and place Each task assessed with a 12 camera motion capture system | • No significant differences between armour configuration (p > 0.05) • Any loaded condition significantly decreased trunk rotation ROM w (p < 0.001) • Any loaded condition increased flexion (p < 0.001) | 60.7 |
Majchrzycka, et. al. 2013 [28] Ergonomics Assessment of Composite Ballistic Inserts for Bullet- and Fragment-Proof Vests | n = 10 Mean ± SD Age: 32.07 ± 2.1 year Mean ± SD Height: 183.0 ± 6.8 cm Mean ± SD Weight: 85.5 ± 9.8 kg Healthy, military males (Poland) | One of three front ballistic plate inserts only within a standard tactical vest Plate WKP x 112(2.10 kg) Plate WKP x 14(3.18 kg) Standard Plate (2.40 kg) | IND d: Which of 3 unique ballistic plates was being worn DEP e: Subjective ergonomics, Grandjean scale, attention/perceptiveness, complex reaction time | Battery of questions, assessment of cognitive function, completion of functional tasks | • Although inconclusive, the lightest plate was rated the highest in subjective scoring • No conclusive changes in cognitive function across the tested plates | 75 |
Majumdar, et. al. 1997 [37] Physiological Effects of Wearing Body Armour on Male Soldiers | Studies I, II: n = 6 Mean ± SD Age: 29.3 ± 4.08 years Mean ± SD Height: 166 ± 5.9 cm Mean ± SD Weight: 58.5 ± 6.92 kg Healthy male Soldiers (India) Study III: n = 16 Mean ± SD Age: 31.5 ± 5.24 years Mean ± SD Height: 167.9 ± 6.15 cm Mean ± SD Weight: 62.8 ± 6.92 Healthy male Soldiers (India) | 11.0 kg metallic plate vest with foam backing (Indian Standard Issue) | IND d: Loaded or unloaded condition DEP e: Treadmill test performance, hot-humid exposure step test performance and pulmonary function | 2.22 m/s, 10 m flat treadmill walk 20 m resting followed by 40 m light exercise in 34 °C, 60% humidity conditions Measurement of FE j, FVC g and max voluntary ventilation | • Physiological values of HR k, and VO2 l all showed significantly greater exertion in the loaded state (p < 0.01) • Pulmonary function deteriorated in the loaded condition (p < 0.001) | 71.4 |
Phillips, et. al. 2015 [31] The Effects of Military Body Armour on the Lower Back and Knee Kinematics During Toe-Touch and Two-Legged Squat Tasks | Males: n = 12 Mean ± SD Age: 26.67 ± 5.47 years Mean ± SD Height: 179 ± 5 cm Mean ± SD Weight: 78.77 ± 9.41 kg Females: n = 12 Mean ± SD Age: 24 ± 5.02 Mean ± SD Height: 166 ± 10 cm Mean ± SD Weight: 61.54 ± 7.38 kg Healthy University Students (US p) | 10.81 kg armour setup consisting of front and back ceramic plates only in a military vest | IND d: Loaded or unloaded condition, fatigued or non-fatigued state DEP e: Lower back and Knee kinematics | Kinematic motion capture examinations of Toe-touch and 2-legged squat tasks both before and after 45 m treadmill walking at 1.65 m/s | Pre Exercise: • duration of self-paced motion capture tests increased (p ≤ 0.02) • Increased time spent in flexion at both joints (p ≤ 0.02) Post-Exercise: • Small but significant effects on duration of motion capture tests (p = 0.03) • Increased time spent in flexion at both joints (p ≤ 0.04) | 78.6 |
Phillips, et. al. 2016 [32] The Effects of Military Body Armour on the Lower Back and Knee Mechanics During Box Drop and Prone to Standing Tasks | Males: n = 12 Mean ± SD Age: 26.67 ± 5.47 years Mean ± SD Height: 179 ± 5 cm Mean ± SD Weight: 78.77 ± 9.41 kg Females: n = 12 Mean ± SD Age: 24 ± 5.02 Mean ± SD Height: 166 ± 10 cm Mean ± SD Weight: 61.54 ± 7.38 kg | 10.81 kg armour setup consisting of front and back ceramic plates only in a military vest | IND d: Loaded or unloaded condition, fatigued or non-fatigued state DEP e: Lower back and Knee kinematics | Kinematic motion capture examinations of box drop and prone-to-standing tasks both before and after 45 m treadmill walking at 1.65 m/s | Pre-Exercise: • The loaded state increased GRF i, time to completion and time spent in flexion (p ≤ 0.02) Post-Exercise: • Thorax posture was at an increased angle for females and a reduced angle for males (p = 0.05) | 78.6 |
Ricciardi, et. al. 2007 [28] Effects of Gender and Body Adiposity on Physiological Responses to Physical Work While Wearing Body Armour | Males: n = 17 Mean ± SD Age: 31.9 ± 4.1 year Mean ± SD Height: 173.6 ± 4.8 cm Mean ± SD Weight: 78.5 ± 14.9 kg Females: n = 17 Mean ± SD Age: 30.4 ± 4.8 years Mean ± SD Height: 163.8 ± 5.1 cm Mean ± SD Weight: 62.1 ± 9.4 kg Healthy, active, military personnel (US p) | Interceptor Outer Tactical Vest (7.8–11 kg) | IND d: Loaded or unloaded condition DEP e: Graded treadmill test performance, blood lactate levels, physical performance battery outcome | Measurement of physiological metrics and recorded perceived exertion of each subject when performing a graded treadmill & military PT m test | • All subjects showed decreased performance and increased physiological strain when equipped with body armour (p ≤ 0.04) • No significant effect of gender on physiological parameters (p > 0.05) • Women reported a higher RPE f than men (p = 0.018) | 64.3 |
Ricciardi, et. al. 2008 [23] Metabolic Demands of Body Armour on Physical Performance in Simulated Stress Conditions | Males: n = 17 Mean ± SD Age: 31.9 ± 4.1 year Mean ± SD Height: 173.6 ± 4.8 cm Mean ± SD Weight: 78.5 ± 14.9 kg Females: n = 17 Mean ± SD Age: 30.4 ± 4.8 years Mean ± SD Height: 163.8 ± 5.1 cm Mean ± SD Weight: 62.1 ± 9.4 kg Healthy, active, military personnel (US p) | Interceptor Outer Tactical Vest (7.8–11 kg) | IND d: Loaded or unloaded condition DEP e: Treadmill test performance, hand grip strength, stair step test performance and pull-ups/hang-time | Subjects participated in 2 test sessions, either with or without body armour and completed the physical performance battery | • Significantly increased physiological strain during treadmill testing (p < 0.001) • Stair stepping and pull-ups/hang time were decreased in the loaded state (p < .0025), and no change in handgrip strength was noted | 75.0 |
Roberts, et. al. 2013 [39] The Effect of Exercise and Body Armour on Cognitive Function in Healthy Volunteers | Study 1: n = 40 Mean ± SD Age: 20.8 ± 1.7 years Healthy male University Students (US p) Study 2: n = 20 Mean ± SD Age: 26.6 ± 6.2 years Healthy male University students (US p) | S203 Tactical Vest F6 PASGT n Helmet | IND d: Brief or extended exercise, loaded or unloaded condition DEP e: Heart rate, oral temp, cognitive function | Study 1: Determine the level of exercise necessary to observe a change in cognitive function Study 2: Physiological variables and cognitive function | • No effect on oral temperature • Loaded condition significantly increased HR k (p < 0.05) • Time, but not loaded condition affected cognitive performance (p < 0.05) | 64.3 |
Sell, et. al. 2013 [30] The Addition of Body Armour Diminishes Dynamic Postural Stability in Military Soldiers | n = 36 (4 females, 32 males) Mean ± SD Age: 29 ± 6.6 years Mean ± SD Height: 174.49 ± 8.84 cm Mean ± SD Weight: 82.38 ± 13.93 kg Healthy, active Airborne Infantry Soldiers (US p) | Standard US Army ACU q Uniform Standard issue US Army Body Armour (Mean ± SD weight 12.47 ± 2.56 kg) | IND d: Loaded or unloaded condition DEP e: Dynamic postural stability | Force plate analysis of a single leg jumping task | • The loaded condition resulted in significantly less dynamic postural stability (p < 0.001) | 71.4 |
Swain, et. al. 2010 [29] Effects of Training on Physical Performance Wearing Personal Protective Equipment | Vest Group: n = 17 (9 females, 8 males) Mean ± SD Age: 22.8 ± 2.5 years Mean ± SD Height: 171 ± 7 cm Mean ± SD Weight: 72.6 ± 12.9 Mean ± SD BMI: 24.7 ± 3.6 Healthy, active, male university students (US p) Control Group: n = 20 (9 females 11 males) Mean ± SD Age: 21.9 ± 2.4 years Mean ± SD Height: 174 ± 8 cm Mean ± SD Weight: 74.8 ± 14.2 kg Mean ± SD BMI: 24.6 ± 3.4 Healthy, active female university students (US p) | Small, medium or large ballistic vest with inserts (US p standard issue) US p standard issue ballistic helmet Total ensemble mean ± SD mass: 11.7 ± 2.8 kg | IND d: Training with or without the ballistic vest/helmet DEP e: FEV j, VO2max s, RER t, HRmax u, USMC r PRT o values | 6 week USMC r-styled physical training regimen either with or without armour | • HRmax u decreased slightly but significantly (p = 0.01) in both groups • VO2max s increased ~2× for the vest group, but this difference did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.16) • No changes in FEV j • Slight but significant (p = 0.01) decrease in RER t in both groups • Both groups significantly improved PRT scores (push-ups, sit-ups, pull-ups, and 3-mile run) following training (p < 0.001) | 82.1 |