Selected movement and force pattern differences in rail- and rung-climbing of fire apparatus aerial ladders at 52.5° slope.

Qianyi Albert Fu, Peter Simeonov, Hongwei Hsiao, Charles Woolley, Thomas J Armstrong

Open access · greenAbstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Applied ergonomics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

1citing papers in PubMed

1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

Strategies to Reduce Fall Severity after a Perturbation during Ladder Climbing.IISE transactions on occupational ergonomics and human factors
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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Qianyi Albert FuCenter for Ergonomics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. Electronic address: qifu@umich.edu.

Peter SimeonovDivision of Safety Research, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Morgantown, WV, USA.

Hongwei HsiaoDivision of Safety Research, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Morgantown, WV, USA.

Charles WoolleyCenter for Ergonomics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.

Thomas J ArmstrongCenter for Ergonomics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.

University of Michigan · USNational Institute for Occupational Safety and Health · US

Funding

Intramural CDC HHS CC999999

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study compares human climbing performance, including climbing speed and movement and force patterns, between rail- and rung-climbing styles for a moderate aerial ladder slope (52.5°). Hand and foot movements and forces were recorded for 9 male and 10 female firefighters as they ascended and descended a 3.4-m ladder using elevated handrails (rail-climbing) or rungs (rung-climbing) for hand support. The results indicated that climbers used three or more points of contact 54% of the time for rung-climbing and 100% of the time for rail-climbing. Furthermore, rail-climbing was 10% faster than rung-climbing. In rail-climbing, the lateral hand forces were mostly directed away from the body; while during rung-climbing, they were alternated in lateral and medial directions. Overall, the results suggested that rail-climbing provides better control over body positioning and faster climbing speed. Furthermore, the continuous contact of both hands in rail-climbing may reduce the fall risk by facilitating the recovery from a slip or perturbation.

Indexed as

FirefightersFootBiomechanical PhenomenaFemaleHandHumansMaleMovementAerial ladderClimbing speedHand supportPoints of contact

Identifiers

PMID34753097

DOI10.1016/j.apergo.2021.103639

PMCPMC11298859

OpenAlexW3212264971

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.