ArticleScientific reports2026
Biomechanical assessment of manual handling to enhance workplace safety based on gait and center of mass analysis.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Manual material handling (MMH) in informal sectors is a significant contributor to work-related musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs), often resulting from unstable load carriage and poor ergonomic practices. This study investigates the biomechanical impact of traditional load-carrying techniques - on the shoulder (CoS), on the back (CoB) - in comparison with a newly designed ergonomic backpack (CoBp), focusing on gait stability, center of mass (COM) dynamics, and lower limb kinematics. Fifteen healthy male participants (mean age: 23.4 ± 1.6 years) performed gait trials under seven load conditions, while spatiotemporal, kinematic, and electromyographic (EMG) data were collected using inertial sensors and wireless surface EMG. Results revealed that the CoBp configuration significantly reduced COM displacement in both horizontal and vertical directions, with a 33% decrease in lateral COM excursion compared to CoB_20 (from 55.2 mm to 37.1 mm) and a 20% reduction in COM height (from 0.91 m to 0.73 m). Additionally, cadence increased from 107.2 steps/min in CoS_20 to 113.1 steps/min in CoBp_20, approaching the normal walking cadence of 111.0 steps/min. Double support phase, a key indicator of stability, was minimized in CoBp_20 (12.4%) compared to CoB_20 (18.2%). Joint kinematics showed reduced range of motion (ROM) at the hip and knee under CoBp, while EMG data indicated a more balanced muscle activation pattern with less asymmetry between the left and right lower limbs. These findings highlight that the proposed backpack design enhances dynamic stability, improves load symmetry, and minimizes lower limb strain during loaded gait. The study establishes CoBp as a biomechanically superior alternative for MMH, with implications for ergonomic interventions across occupational settings.
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.