Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation

Search Page

My NCBI Filters
Results by year

Table representation of search results timeline featuring number of search results per year.

Year Number of Results
2004 2
2007 2
2008 2
2011 1
2013 1
2014 1
2017 1
2018 2
2020 0
Text availability
Article attribute
Article type
Publication date

Search Results

10 results
Results by year
Filters applied: . Clear all
Page 1
The influence of child restraint lower attachment method on protection offered by forward facing child restraint systems in oblique loading conditions.
Hauschild HW, Humm JR, Pintar FA, Yoganandan N, Kaufman B, Maltese MR, Arbogast KB. Hauschild HW, et al. Traffic Inj Prev. 2018 Feb 28;19(sup1):S139-S145. doi: 10.1080/15389588.2017.1369532. Traffic Inj Prev. 2018. PMID: 29584498
RESULTS: Results demonstrated a reduction in injury measures with the rigid ISOFIX and dual webbing attachment compared to the single webbing attachment with decreased lateral head excursions (331, 356, and 441 mm for the rigid ISOFIX, dual webbing, and single webbi …
RESULTS: Results demonstrated a reduction in injury measures with the rigid ISOFIX and dual webbing attachment compared to the single …
Performance of booster seats in side impacts: effect of adjacent passengers and ISOfix attachment.
Charlton JL, Fildes B, Taranto D, Laemmle R, Smith S, Clark A. Charlton JL, et al. Annu Proc Assoc Adv Automot Med. 2007;51:155-67. Annu Proc Assoc Adv Automot Med. 2007. PMID: 18184490 Free PMC article.
This study examined the performance of a booster seat in different seating configurations in side-impact hyGe sled tests (crash severity 30 km/h) with two attachment systems: a standard seatbelt and ISOfix (rigid). The objectives of the study were twofold: (i) to identify …
This study examined the performance of a booster seat in different seating configurations in side-impact hyGe sled tests (crash severity 30 …
Differences in the kinematics of booster-seated pediatric occupants using two different car seats.
Juste-Lorente O, Maza M, Lorente AI, Lopez-Valdes FJ. Juste-Lorente O, et al. Traffic Inj Prev. 2018 Jan 2;19(1):18-22. doi: 10.1080/15389588.2017.1334119. Epub 2017 Jun 8. Traffic Inj Prev. 2018. PMID: 28594247
METHODS: Two different anthropomorphic test device (ATD) sizes (P3 and P6), using the same child restraint system (a non-ISOFIX high-back booster seat), were exposed to the ECE R44 regulatory deceleration pulse in a deceleration sled. ...
METHODS: Two different anthropomorphic test device (ATD) sizes (P3 and P6), using the same child restraint system (a non-ISOFIX high- …
Evaluation of sprayable fixatives on a sandy soil for potential use in a dirty bomb response.
Fritz BG, Whitaker JD. Fritz BG, et al. Health Phys. 2008 Jun;94(6):512-8. doi: 10.1097/01.HP.0000305822.94646.8e. Health Phys. 2008. PMID: 18469584
This work evaluated two commercially available particle fixatives (IsoFIX-HT and IsoFIX-RC) for their effectiveness in preventing dispersal of simulated contamination. ...One fixative (IsoFIX-RC) effectively held the tracer in place with no net loss of tracer …
This work evaluated two commercially available particle fixatives (IsoFIX-HT and IsoFIX-RC) for their effectiveness in prevent …
Methods to mitigate injury to toddlers in near-side impact crashes.
Kapoor T, Altenhof W, Howard A, Rasico J, Zhu F. Kapoor T, et al. Accid Anal Prev. 2008 Nov;40(6):1880-92. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2008.07.008. Epub 2008 Sep 5. Accid Anal Prev. 2008. PMID: 19068290
Further, numerical simulations were completed for both the dummy models with rectangular and cross-shaped sections of rigid ISOFIX systems. ...It was observed that the use of rigid ISOFIX system reduced the lateral displacement of the CRS and different injury parame …
Further, numerical simulations were completed for both the dummy models with rectangular and cross-shaped sections of rigid ISOFIX sy …
A numerical investigation into the effect of CRS misuse on the injury potential of children in frontal and side impact crashes.
Kapoor T, Altenhof W, Snowdon A, Howard A, Rasico J, Zhu F, Baggio D. Kapoor T, et al. Accid Anal Prev. 2011 Jul;43(4):1438-50. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2011.02.022. Epub 2011 Mar 16. Accid Anal Prev. 2011. PMID: 21545877
Use of the cross-shaped rigid ISOFIX system illustrated a reduction in head and neck injury parameters, for both frontal and side impact conditions, in the absence and presence of CRS misuse. ...Use of a rigid ISOFIX system to restrain a CRS provides better CRS and …
Use of the cross-shaped rigid ISOFIX system illustrated a reduction in head and neck injury parameters, for both frontal and side imp …
National roadside survey of child restraint system use in Belgium.
Mathieu R, Peter S, Yvan C, Philippe L. Mathieu R, et al. Accid Anal Prev. 2014 Jan;62:369-76. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2013.08.021. Epub 2013 Sep 4. Accid Anal Prev. 2014. PMID: 24060294
Although the sample of ISOFIX users was small (n=76), it appears that the ISOFIX system reduced misuse significantly. Most of the drivers were ignorant of their own errors concerning the inappropriateness and/or misuse of the CRS or they were remiss and underestimat …
Although the sample of ISOFIX users was small (n=76), it appears that the ISOFIX system reduced misuse significantly. Most of …
The performance of various rear facing child restraint systems in a frontal crash.
Sherwood CP, Abdelilah Y, Crandall JR, Stevens SL, Saggese JM, Eichelberger MR. Sherwood CP, et al. Annu Proc Assoc Adv Automot Med. 2004;48:303-21. Annu Proc Assoc Adv Automot Med. 2004. PMID: 15319132 Free PMC article.
Current forward facing (FF) child restraint designs use LATCH and ISOFIX systems to couple the restraint to the vehicle. Rear facing (RF) child restraints, however, have multiple coupling methods that vary by manufacturer and country of origin. ...
Current forward facing (FF) child restraint designs use LATCH and ISOFIX systems to couple the restraint to the vehicle. Rear facing …
A preliminary evaluation of child restraints and anchorage systems for an Australian car.
Charlton JL, Fildes B, Laemmle R, Smith S, Douglas F. Charlton JL, et al. Annu Proc Assoc Adv Automot Med. 2004;48:73-86. Annu Proc Assoc Adv Automot Med. 2004. PMID: 15319118 Free PMC article.
This study examined the performance of three rear-facing and two forward-facing child restraints (CRS) with three anchorage systems: standard seatbelt, LATCH (flexible) and ISOFIX (rigid). ...
This study examined the performance of three rear-facing and two forward-facing child restraints (CRS) with three anchorage systems: standar …
Frontal sled tests comparing rear and forward facing child restraints with 1-3 year old dummies.
Sherwood CP, Crandall JR. Sherwood CP, et al. Annu Proc Assoc Adv Automot Med. 2007;51:169-80. Annu Proc Assoc Adv Automot Med. 2007. PMID: 18184491 Free PMC article.
Restraint systems tested included both 1) LATCH and 2) rigid ISOFIX with support leg designs. Rear facing restraints with support legs provided the best results for all injury measures, while RF restraints in general provided the lowest chest displacements and neck loads.. …
Restraint systems tested included both 1) LATCH and 2) rigid ISOFIX with support leg designs. Rear facing restraints with support leg …
Feedback