ArticlePloS one2023
Influences of cushion contour on passenger comfort and interface pressure in high-speed train.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Enhanced comfort and biomechanical performance of ejection seat cushions via optimal double-layer foam design.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this paper, eight different contoured cushions (S1-S8) in two categories (flat and wrapped) were designed to study the influence of different contoured cushions on passenger comfort in high-speed trains. Meanwhile, subjective data investigation by the comfort Likert Scale questionnaire and objective physical variables collection by the body-cushion contact pressure test was carried out. In addition, one-way ANOVA and Pearson correlation analysis were performed on the subjective survey and objective test data. The results show that the cushion contours had a significant effect on the subjective evaluation of the overall comfort of the participants, in which the overall comfort below the waist of the separated wrapped cushion S8 has the highest subjective comfort score. The overall comfort of the flat-front bulge type cushion S4 and the local comfort of the thighs and the root of the thighs were rated higher than other flat types. Under the flat cushion, the effect of stature characteristics (mainly weight and hip-width) on the overall comfort subjective ratings was insignificant, and the effect on the contact pressure distribution variables was significant, but the contact pressure distribution variables were not correlated with the comfort ratings. Under the wrapped cushion, the effect of stature characteristics on the overall comfort subjective ratings and contact pressure distribution variables was significant. There were positive and negative correlations between the average peak contact pressure and average contact pressure and comfort ratings, respectively.
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.