ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2021
Evaluation of Winter Footwear: Comparison of Test Methods to Determine Footwear Slip Resistance on Ice Surfaces.
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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Estimating Human-Centered Slip-Resistance of Winter Footwear on Ice Using Mechanical Testing.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Article
- Development and Evaluation of a Slip Detection Algorithm for Walking on Level and Inclined Ice Surfaces.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.