Ergonomics Applied to the Development and Evaluation of Insoles for Protective Footwear

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

General comments

 

The purpose of this study is to compare the previous insole design with an innovative insole design. And analyze the plantar pressure and gait pattern kinematics using the Oxford Foot Model Protocol.

 

This paper could give insight into making an ergonomic insole design since the researchers performed tests by comparing several environments with different parts of the gait.

 

The plantar pressure analysis, especially in its distribution, shows that the innovative insole presents a better load distribution in terms of the maximum plantar pressure exerted in the hindfoot and forefoot regions.

 

The figures and tables alignment still need to be arranged.

 

 

Specific comments

 

Line 30-32: "the five variables (Ankle_X, Ankle_Y, FETBA, FFHFA, and HXFFA) did not show variation in the normal mechanics of the foot in any of the three environments studied."

# Variables are only stated without stating what they refer to.

 

Line 41-42: "Ergonomics and Human Factors are terms with worldwide acceptance,"

# Is it necessary to capitalize on Ergonomics and Human Factors

 

Line 57-59: "In a broader view, ergonomic tasks can be classified into corrective or design. It is considered a correction task when Ergonomics"

# The use of "Ergonomic" is not consistent. Sometimes author either stated with lowercase or capital case

 

Line 54-60: "Its importance in the first steps of the systems life cycle, from products to environments, creativity, and innovation processes have been including Ergonomics in their conception. In a broader view, ergonomic tasks can be classified into corrective or design. It is considered a correction task when Ergonomics is used to solve problems that are a consequence of the use of a product or related to a specific environment."

# The sentence is too long, and there is no reference. Wondering if it is an opinion or a statement

 

 

Line 64-65: "To achieve this, Ergonomics associated with two other scientific areas: Anthropometry and Biomechanics"

# There is no explanation of Anthropometry in the introduction.

 

Line 68-75: "For instance, Lin et al. [7] evaluated the biomechanics of the standing and sitting positions workers used during working time, identifying that different postures adopted for the shoulder and forearm between workstations and the presence of greater postural variability in the standing position increase shoulder rotation and extension patterns, that could be associated to working problems"

# The aim is to design insoles, and the test was performed by walking. Why are standing, sitting positions, and body postures required?

 

Line 151-155: "Foot type classification was then assigned to each participant's foot by the application of the scale: values between 0.22 and 0.31 were classified as normal or neutral feet [16]; values below 0.22 were classified as flat feet; values above 0.31 were classified as cavus feet"

# How many samples were taken for each classification

 

Line 158: Table 1

# There is no value information. Then, the percentage result is based on what?

# What is the BMI stand for?

 

Line 160-162: "To fulfill the objective of this study, three different analyzes were chosen: plantar pressure analysis, gait biomechanical analysis and anthropometric analysis."

# Those three analyzes are explained in another word

 

Line 168-169: "for women a tight-fitting lycra shorts and a top, and for men a tight lycra short"

# Lycra should replace with a more common word

 

Line 203-204: “Erro! A origem da referência não foi encontrada…”

# An error message in the paper

 

Line 252-253: "Plantar pressure data were analyzed using Microsoft Excel 365 (version 2205)"

Line 268-270: "The ICC estimates and their 95% confidence intervals were calculated using IBM SPSS version 27 (SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL)"

# Not consistent in describing the software information

 

Line 298-300: "This section is divided by studied variables in terms of kinetic (plantar pressure), kinematic (OFM) and 3D anthropometry measurement."

# Not consistent on how they use the sub-title later on

 

Line 306-309: "with i) H0, µstd=µinv, that is, there are no significant differences in the averages of total plantar pressure between the (STD) standard insole and the innovative insole (INV) in the three rockers of the gait; ii) H1, µstd≠µinv,"

# Why use "i) "for listing? And the word sequence for abbreviation is not consistent

 

Line 328: Table 3

# What is the STD, INV, and s.d. stand for?

 

Line 334: "According to [24],"

# According to whom/what

 

Line 346-347: "in the environments of the standard insole and the innovative insole,"

Line 356-358:" the test performed with the (STD) standard insole and the test performed with the (INV) innovative insole in none of the gait rockers,"

# Inconsistency in the way of using the abbreviation

 

Line 360-361: "the one insoles with the lowest average is considered the best."

# It should be "the insole with the lowest average is considered the best"

 

Line 372-376:" In the midfoot, in both feet, there were an increase in plantar pressure, which was expected due to the improvement in pressure distribution, through the reduction of local pressure peaks and extension of the contact area caused by the innovative insole"

# According to table 4, only the right foot has significantly increased, while on the left foot, the data of s.d. is alike

 

Line 377, 397, 311, 424, 456: Table 4-8

# Why use a one-tailed p-value, if the previous tables use two-tailed

 

Line 400-401:" with the innovative insoles used in the fourth environment (INV2),"

Line 413-414: "was compared to the innovative insole of the fifth environment (INV3)"

# What is the fourth and fifth environment

 

Line 500-507: "which correspond respectively to the ankle angle in the sagittal plane (dorsiflexion/plantar flexion) and in the frontal plane (eversion/inversion), to the tibia angle for joint visualization midtarsal joint (Chopart joint) in the frontal plane, at the angle of the forefoot in relation to the hindfoot; for visualization of the tarsometatarsal joint (Lisfranc joint) in the frontal plane and the angle of the big toe in relation to the forefoot in the sagittal plane (dorsiflexion only)."

# Inconsistent in using capital letters inside the bracket

 

Line 508-509: "All kinematic variables were observed between the several environments that participants were asked to…."

# No explanation regarding the several environments

 

Line 513:" significantly different in the three environments,"

# Which environment are they referring to

 

Line 548-550: "the midtarsal joint presents a very small variation of-1 to 3 degrees in the left foot and from-4 to 0 degrees in the right foot" 

Line 554-556:" The tarsometatarsal joint also showed a slight variation of 5 degrees in the left foot and-1 to 4 degrees in the right foot."

# How do they decide the degrees

 

Line 567-569:" The ICC values in the midfoot joints (FETBA and FFHFA) variables ranged from 0.958 and 0.995, and 0.972 and 0.999, respectively."

# What is the difference between midfoot joints FETBA and FFHFA

 

Line 575-576: "According to the classification by [19]"

# Incomplete reference

 

Line 597-598:" according to their individual characteristics"

# What is their characteristic

 

Line 602-603:" the angle that presented the greatest variation in amplitude was the hallux"

# There is no word "hallux" in figure 8

 

Line 626-644:" With the removal of some outliers that will be evaluated later, it was observed that in the left foot the Ankle_X variable on average showed that the innovative insole had a lower variability of 0.95 compared to the standard insole that obtained an average of 1.44. In the Ankle_Y the innovative insole had an average variation of 20.03 and the standard insole had an average of 24.00, in the FETBA the innovative insole had an average variation of 20.96 and the standard insole 38.40, in the FFHFA the insole The innovative insole had an average variability of 5.95 and the standard insole had 4.88 and in the HXFFA the innovative insole had an average of 13.82 and the standard insole had an average of 12.46. On the right foot, in the Ankle_X the innovative insole presented an average of 2.25 of variability and the standard 0.16, in the Ankle_Y the innovative insole obtained an average of 1.50 and the standard of 2.20, in the FETBA the average obtained was 10.64 for the innovative insole and 6.41 for the standard, in the FFHFA the innovative insole obtained 35.62 and the standard 40.68 and in the HXFFA the average obtained was 4.36 for the innovative insole and 4.49 for the standard."

# It is better if these lines provide the figure or table to understand the result

 

Line 668: "and 5th and 95th percentiles of the…."

# Why choose the 5th and 95th percentiles

 

Line 687-688:" there was a penalization in the midfoot, however, it may be…"

# It should be "there was a penalization in the midfoot. However, it may be…"

 

During the different waking conditions, authors may consider citing the following information. 

(2022). Effects of walking speeds and durations on the plantar pressure gradient and pressure gradient angle. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 23(1), 823.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

We recommend separating the results and discussion sections. In the latter, an effort should be made by the authors to contrast their results with other similar studies.

In the discussion section it says "According to the classification by [19]" .This sentence should be clarified and the reference modified?

In the same section, "According to [30]" should be changed to " According to what has been reported in other studies, adequate footwear is determined by the good adaptation of the foot and insole, without losing the fit....

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The article is based on solid experimental work, but it lacks novelty. This methodology has been applied for many years. Most part of the experiment consists in using and comparing the results for two insoles, one standard and one innovative. What does make the second one innovative? Is it obtained with the help of research or is it a commercial one?

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback. The novelty consists in assessing the use of insoles generically oriented towards specific foot types more than standard ones that do not take into consideration this aspect. Thus, we expect to understand if the existence of standard insoles with foot-type orientation can provide more adequate pressure distribution and consequent benefits in terms of comfort without lack of protection and usability of the protective footwear.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have provided a nicely detailed and thorough response to the comments from the previous review and have addressed my major concerns. The authors may consider including more in the discussion section by comparing your results with other related papers.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have made improvements, and the manuscript is clear and presented in a well-structured manner. The research can be continued by analyzing other types of insoles and developing new ones.