ArticleF1000Research2025
Ergonomic Design and Evaluation of Cloth-Pulling Devices for Praewa Silk Weavers .
Article in F1000Research, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Traditional weaving professionals pull cloth manually during the handloom process, which can lead to several unnoticed musculoskeletal disorders. The aim of this study was to design and evaluate the effectiveness of cloth-pulling devices for Praewa silk weavers in Thailand. Methods: An experimental trial was conducted using surface electromyography to evaluate weavers' muscle activity, productivity and perceived satisfaction during the Praewa silk-pulling process while employing traditional cloth pulling, using a standard cloth-pulling device and using an ergonomic prototype cloth-pulling device. Results: The results showed that the levels of muscle activity and hand activity with the prototype design were generally lower than those with traditional cloth pulling and with the standard cloth-pulling device (p < 0.01). There was a significant preference for the prototype, based on productivity and perceived satisfaction (p < 0.01). Conclusions: The new cloth-pulling device was found to be both applicable and well accepted by the weavers. It is recommended that future research include ergonomic assessments such as muscle activity and fatigue measurements during actual field production to further refine the tool design. Additionally, workstation modifications and improvements to working conditions should be explored to enhance overall ergonomics and worker well-being in the weaving industry Practical implementation of these recommendations may contribute to increased productivity and reduced work-related discomfort among weavers.
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.