Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33419196›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2021

Evaluation of Winter Footwear: Comparison of Test Methods to Determine Footwear Slip Resistance on Ice Surfaces.

Atena Roshan Fekr, Yue Li, Chantal Gauvin, Gordon Wong, Wayne Cheng, Geoff Fernie, Tilak Dutta

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

7 authors.

Atena Roshan FekrThe Kite Research Institute, Toronto Rehabilitation Institute-University Health Network, Toronto, ON M5G 2A2, Canada.
Yue LiThe Kite Research Institute, Toronto Rehabilitation Institute-University Health Network, Toronto, ON M5G 2A2, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-7945-0359
Chantal GauvinMechanical and Physical Risk Prevention Team, IRSST-Institut de Recherche Robert-Sauvé en Santé et en Sécurité du Travail, Montréal, QC H3A 3C2, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-7250-4003
Gordon WongThe Kite Research Institute, Toronto Rehabilitation Institute-University Health Network, Toronto, ON M5G 2A2, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-5269-2051
Wayne ChengThe Kite Research Institute, Toronto Rehabilitation Institute-University Health Network, Toronto, ON M5G 2A2, Canada.
Geoff FernieThe Kite Research Institute, Toronto Rehabilitation Institute-University Health Network, Toronto, ON M5G 2A2, Canada.
Tilak DuttaThe Kite Research Institute, Toronto Rehabilitation Institute-University Health Network, Toronto, ON M5G 2A2, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of slip-resistant winter footwear is crucial for the prevention of slips and falls on ice and snow. The main objective of this paper is to evaluate a mechanical testing method to determine footwear slip resistance on wet and dry ice surfaces and to compare it with the human-centred test method introduced by researchers at KITE (Knowledge, Innovation, Talent, Everywhere)-Toronto Rehabilitation Institute-University Health Network. Phase 1 of this study assessed the repeatability and reproducibility of the mechanical method by evaluating ten different occupational winter boots using two SATRA Slip resistance testers (STM 603, SATRA Technology Centre, Kettering, UK). One tester is located in Toronto and one in Montreal. These boots were chosen based on the needs of the IRSST (Institut de Recherche Robert-Sauvé en Santé et en Sécurité du Travail, Montréal, Quebec, Canada), who were primarily interested in providing safe winter footwear for police, firefighters and municipal workers. In Phase 2, the results of the human-centred test approach were compared with the mechanical results. In Phase 3, two of these boots with conflicting results from the previous phases were tested using a second human-centred method. In Phase 1, the mechanical testing results obtained in the two labs showed a high linear correlation (>0.94) and good agreement on both ice surfaces; however, they revealed a bias (~0.06) between the two labs on the dry ice condition. The mechanical and human-centred tests (phase 2) were found to be better correlated in the wet ice condition (R = 0.95) compared to the dry ice condition (R = 0.34). Finally, the rating of the footwear slip resistance based on the number of slips counted in phase 3 was consistent with the rating by the human-centred test method (phase 2), but not the mechanical method (phase 1). The findings of this study provide a better understanding of the limitations of the SATRA ice tray for measuring footwear slip resistance and demonstrate that the mechanical method must be further refined to make it more comparable to the human-centred methods to achieve better agreement with real-world performance.

Indexed as

IceShoesAccidental FallsCanadaHumansQuebecReproducibility of ResultsIcefallfootwearicemaximum achievable angleSATRAslipslip resistancewinter

Identifiers

PMID33419196
PMCPMC7825554

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.