Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24386434›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2013

Impact of low filter resistances on subjective and physiological responses to filtering facepiece respirators.

Raymond J Roberge, Jung-Hyun Kim, Jeffrey B Powell, Ronald E Shaffer, Caroline M Ylitalo, John M Sebastian

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Added Inspiratory Resistance Does Not Impair Cognitive Function and Mood State.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Effect of Cloth Masks and N95 Respirators on Maximal Exercise Performance in Collegiate Athletes.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Feasibility Assessment of Wearable Respiratory Monitors for Ambulatory Inhalation Topography.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Project BREATHE - Prototype Respirator Evaluation Utilizing Newly Proposed Respirator Test Criteria.Journal of the International Society for Respiratory Protection · 2017
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Raymond J RobergeTechnology Research Branch, National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Jung-Hyun KimTechnology Research Branch, National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Jeffrey B PowellTechnology Research Branch, National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Ronald E ShafferTechnology Research Branch, National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Caroline M YlitaloPersonal Safety Division, 3M Company, St. Paul, Minnesota, United States of America.
John M SebastianPersonal Safety Division, 3M Company, St. Paul, Minnesota, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ten subjects underwent treadmill exercise at 5.6 km/h over one hour while wearing each of three identical appearing, cup-shaped, prototype filtering facepiece respirators that differed only in their filter resistances (3 mm, 6 mm, and 9 mm H2O pressure drop). There were no statistically significant differences between filtering facepiece respirators with respect to impact on physiological parameters (i.e., heart rate, respiratory rate, oxygen saturation, transcutaneous carbon dioxide levels, tympanic membrane temperature), pulmonary function variables (i.e., tidal volume, respiratory rate, volume of carbon dioxide production, oxygen consumption, or ventilation), and subjective ratings (i.e., exertion, thermal comfort, inspiratory effort, expiratory effort and overall breathing comfort). The nominal filter resistances of the prototype filtering facepiece respirators correspond to airflow resistances ranging from 2.1 - 6.6 mm H2O/L/s which are less than, or minimally equivalent to, previously reported values for the normal threshold for detection of inspiratory breathing resistance (6 - 7.6 mm H2O/L/sec). Therefore, filtering facepiece respirators with filter resistances at, or below, this level may not impact the wearer differently physiologically or subjectively from those with filter resistances only slightly above this threshold at low-moderate work rates over one hour.

Indexed as

Heart RateOxygenOxygen ConsumptionRespiratory Protective DevicesRespiratory RateAdultFemaleHumansMaleTime FactorsOxygen

Identifiers

PMID24386434
PMCPMC3873997

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.