Q-Collar: Hope, Hype, and Hard Lessons in Sports Safety
In recent years, the Q-Collar has been marketed as a breakthrough in concussion prevention—an FDA-cleared device that applies gentle pressure to the jugular veins, aiming to slightly increase intracranial blood volume and, in theory, “cushion” the brain against impact. The concept, inspired by how woodpeckers avoid brain injury, has captured the imagination of athletes, parents, and sports programs eager for any tool that might reduce the risk of head trauma.
But according to a new investigation published in The BMJ on October 17, 2025, that hope may be misplaced.
Editor-in-chief Kamran Abbasi describes the story of the Q-Collar as one of “ambition and hope”—but ultimately, “false hope.” The article exposes data irregularities in the studies used to support the device’s FDA clearance, and raises deeper concerns about whether the underlying science ever held up to scrutiny. Despite the lack of clear, reproducible evidence that the device prevents concussion or long-term brain injury, the Q-Collar has found its way onto NFL sidelines, high school fields, and youth sports programs nationwide.
Abbasi writes, “Every intervention is a vector of harm—trivial, minor, major, or yet to be determined.” When the benefits are more theoretical than real, regulators and clinicians alike have a duty of care to protect athletes from being misled.
A Case Study in Regulatory Oversight
The BMJ investigation argues that the FDA failed in its duty of care by approving a device with uncertain mechanisms and questionable data. The concern isn’t just about this single product—it’s about the broader system that allows well-intentioned but poorly supported devices to reach the public under the guise of safety.
For those of us working in sports medicine, this case serves as an important reminder:
Innovation should never outpace evidence.
What Athletes, Coaches, and Parents Should Know
There is no device currently proven to prevent concussion. Helmets and protective gear can reduce skull fractures and lacerations, but they cannot prevent the brain from moving within the skull.
The Q-Collar is not without risk. Applying external pressure to jugular veins can theoretically alter blood flow and intracranial pressure—effects that deserve careful, independent study.
Evidence-based prevention still works best. Proper tackling technique, rule enforcement, neck strengthening, recognition of early symptoms, and immediate removal from play remain the gold standards.
Skepticism is healthy. When a product claims to “protect the brain,” it should be backed by peer-reviewed, reproducible data—not marketing hype.
Final Thoughts
As clinicians, researchers, and advocates for athlete safety, we must demand higher standards of evidence before endorsing products that promise protection but may deliver false reassurance. The BMJ’s investigation into the Q-Collar should prompt us to re-examine not only this specific device, but also the regulatory processes that allowed it onto the market.
Athletes deserve better than untested promises—they deserve protection that’s proven.