Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32647950›Full record

ArticleOsteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA2020

A comparison of floor surfaces for injury prevention in care settings: impact forces and horizontal pulling force required to move wheeled equipment.

B E Keenan, K Hallas, A K Drahota, S L Evans

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

B E KeenanSchool of Engineering, Cardiff University Queen's Buildings, The Parade, Cardiff, CF24 3AA, UK. keenanB@cardiff.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7787-2892
K HallasScience Division, Health & Safety Executive (HSE), Harpur Hill, Derbyshire, Buxton, SK17 9JN, UK.
A K DrahotaSchool of Health & Care Professions, University of Portsmouth, Hampshire, Portsmouth, PO1 2PR, UK.
S L EvansSchool of Engineering, Cardiff University Queen's Buildings, The Parade, Cardiff, CF24 3AA, UK.
Cardiff University · GBHSE Science and Research Centre · GBUniversity of Portsmouth · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Shock-absorbing flooring is one potential solution to prevent fall-related injuries. No standards exist to characterize shock-absorbing healthcare flooring. This study explores two mechanical tests for impact force reduction and horizontal force required to move wheeled objects. An appropriately designed rubber underlay can reduce peak impact by 25% compared with 1% with standard vinyl.

introductionSevere falls often occur in hospitals and care homes. Shock-absorbing flooring is one potential solution to prevent fall-related injuries; however, no standards exist for characterizing flooring as an injury prevention measure. Shock-absorbing flooring use in high-risk settings may influence both patients (injury-saving potential) and staff (manoeuvring equipment). We aimed to explore two tests to characterize floors, to determine shock absorbency and horizontal pulling force required to move wheeled objects.

methodsMechanical testing was performed according to the Canadian Standards Association Z325 Hip Protectors document. This test was developed for hip protectors but is applicable to compliant surfaces that form part of the floor. Tests were performed on commercially available floor materials (suitable for care settings) to assess the force required to initiate movement of a wheeled object across the floor. We explored the relationships between horizontal force required to pull wheeled objects, impact force, floor thickness, and core material.

resultsConsiderable differences were identified between floor samples in their ability to reduce the peak impact force (range 0.7-25%). A peak force reduction of up to 25% can be achieved with a specially designed rubber underlay. Horizontal pulling force increased with floor thickness but was lower for rubber floors. There was no direct relationship between impact attenuation and horizontal pulling force. Whilst thickness and core material explain some variations (66.5% for wheel movement; 82.3% for impact), other unmeasured factors clearly influence floor performance.

conclusionsThese results can inform the development of flooring and the establishment of standards needed to underpin practice, research, and development in this field.

Indexed as

Accidental FallsFloors and FloorcoveringsCanadaHumansMovementProtective DevicesBiomechanicsFall injuriesFallsFloorsHip fracturesPrevention

Identifiers

PMID32647950
OpenAlexW3041626344

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.