ArticleLa Medicina del lavoro2025
Ergonomic Criteria and Usability Testing of Cut-Resistant Protective Gloves: An Experimental Study.
Article in La Medicina del lavoro, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough hand and arm injuries can be prevented with protective gloves, their use may reduce hand dexterity and muscle strength. This study examined the ergonomic criteria and usability of four cut-resistant protective gloves (CRPGs) types to identify the optimal glove choice.
methodsIn this experimental study, 22 male participants were tested under five conditions: barehanded, wearing nitrile-coated gloves, gel-coated gloves, material-coated gloves, and foam nitrile-coated gloves. Dexterity was assessed using the Bennett and O'Connor tests; grip and pinch force were measured with a dynamometer, and a goniometer assessed the range of motion. The gloves' usability was evaluated through the System Usability Scale (SUS) questionnaire. At the same time, localized discomfort in different areas of the hand was assessed using the Local Perceived Discomfort (LPD) questionnaire. Finally, glove comparisons were made using appropriate statistical tests analyzed with SPSS version 24 software.
resultsAll examined CRPGs significantly lowered finger dexterity scores (p < 0.001). However, the effects of different gloves on hand dexterity varied. Wearing all four gloves reduced grip force, but statistically significant differences in grip force were noted only between the barehanded condition and Glove B (p = 0.004). Using all four gloves increased pinch force, though this increase was statistically significant only between the barehanded condition and Glove D (p = 0.005). Wearing all gloves caused a statistically significant reduction in wrist, palm, and finger range of motion compared to the barehanded condition (p < 0.005). Lastly, there was a significant statistical difference between the gloves regarding usability (p = 0.001) and LPD (p = 0.001).
conclusionsCRPGs can greatly influence hand skills. Glove D, featuring a foam nitrile coating, exhibited the highest finger dexterity compared to the other gloves studied. Considering aspects like sweat resistance and anatomical design, this foam nitrile-coated glove is appropriate for cutting-resistant tasks within various industries.
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.