ArticleApplied ergonomics2020
An observational ergonomic tool for assessing the worn condition of slip-resistant shoes.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- A comprehensive review on diabetic foot ulcer addressing vascular insufficiency, impaired immune response, and delayed wound healing mechanisms.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Review
- Validation of a portable shoe tread scanner to predict slip risk.Journal of safety research · 2023Article
- Construction industry workers' compensation injury claims due to slips, trips, and falls - Ohio, 2010-2017.Journal of safety research · 2023Article
- Shoe Tread Wear Occurs Primarily during Early Stance and Precedes the Peak Required Coefficient of Friction.Footwear science · 2022Article
- Effects of natural shoe wear on traction performance: a longitudinal study.Footwear science · 2022Article
- Gait kinetics impact shoe tread wear rate.Gait & posture · 2021Article
- An alternative method for analyzing the slip potential of workers on sloped surfaces.Safety science · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.