Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32678768›Full record

ArticleApplied ergonomics2020

An observational ergonomic tool for assessing the worn condition of slip-resistant shoes.

Kurt E Beschorner, Johanna L Siegel, Sarah L Hemler, Vani H Sundaram, Arnab Chanda, Arian Iraqi, Joel M Haight, Mark S Redfern

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Applied ergonomics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
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

8 authors.

Kurt E BeschornerDepartment of Bioengineering, University of Pittsburgh, USA. Electronic address: beschorn@pitt.edu.
Johanna L SiegelDepartment of Bioengineering, University of Pittsburgh, USA.
Sarah L HemlerDepartment of Bioengineering, University of Pittsburgh, USA.
Vani H SundaramDepartment of Mechanical Engineering and Material Science, University of Pittsburgh, USA; Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Colorado Boulder, USA.
Arnab ChandaDepartment of Bioengineering, University of Pittsburgh, USA; Center for Biomedical Engineering, India Institute of Technology-Delhi, India.
Arian IraqiDepartment of Bioengineering, University of Pittsburgh, USA.
Joel M HaightDepartment of Industrial Engineering, University of Pittsburgh, USA.
Mark S RedfernDepartment of Bioengineering, University of Pittsburgh, USA.

Funding

VARIABILITY, STABILITY & SMOOTHNESS OF WALKINGP30AG024827 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI Caterina Rosano · 2004 to 2026
$28.6M
Preventing Slips in Food Service: Development of Tools for Shoe Selection and ReplacementR01OH010940 · OH · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI BESCHORNER, KURT E, SOMMERICH, CAROLYN M · 2015 to 2025
$3.1M
Motion Capture SystemS10RR027102 · NCRR · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI CHAM, RAKIE · 2011 to 2011
$232k
NCRR NIH HHS S10 RR027102NIA NIH HHS P30 AG024827NIOSH CDC HHS R01 OH010940
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Worn shoes are known to contribute to slip-and-fall risk, a common cause of workplace injuries. However, guidelines for replacing shoes are not well developed. Recent experiments and lubrication theory suggest that the size of the worn region is an important contributor to the shoe tread's ability to drain fluid and therefore the under-shoe friction. This study evaluated a simple test for comparing the size of the worn region relative to a common object (AAA and AA battery) as a means of determining shoe replacement. This study consisted of three components involving slip-resistant shoes: Experiment #1: a longitudinal, mechanical, accelerated wear experiment; Experiment #2: a longitudinal experiment where the same shoes were tested after each month of worker use; and Experiment #3: a cross-sectional experiment that exposed participants to a slippery condition, while donning their own worn shoes. The COF (Experiments #1 and #2); under-shoe fluid pressure (all experiments); and slip severity (Experiment #3) were compared across outcomes (fail/pass) of the battery tests. Larger fluid pressures, lower coefficient of friction, and more severe slips were observed for shoes that failed the battery tests compared with those passing the tests. This method offers promise for assessing loss in friction and an increase in slip risk for slip-resistant shoes.

Indexed as

Accidents, OccupationalAdultCross-Sectional StudiesErgonomicsFemaleFloors and FloorcoveringsFrictionHumansLongitudinal StudiesMaleMaterials TestingOccupational InjuriesShoesSurface PropertiesTractionAnd fall accidentsEquipment inspectionFootwearObservational toolsPersonal protective equipmentSlipTrip

Identifiers

PMID32678768
PMCPMC7368090

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.