ReviewAmerican journal of infection control2015
Selecting models for a respiratory protection program: what can we learn from the scientific literature?
Review in American journal of infection control, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quantitative fit-test concordance of a pair of similar-fit 3M Aura respirator models, 3M 9320A+ and 3M 1870+: A randomized crossover study.Infection control and hospital epidemiology · 2023Trial
- Lessons learned in establishing and sustaining elastomeric half mask respirator-based respiratory protection programs: An impact evaluation.Journal of occupational and environmental hygiene · 2025Article
- Experiences when using different EHMR models: Implications for different designs and meeting user expectations.American journal of infection control · 2025Article
- Validation of N95 respirator models for pressure drop and particle capture efficiency.Journal of occupational and environmental hygiene · 2023Article
- Striving to be the fittest: quantitative P2/N95 respirator fit test results among hospital staff during the COVID-19 pandemic.Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2023Article
- Protocol of a prospective comprehensive evaluation of an elastic band beard cover for filtering facepiece respirators in healthcare.PloS one · 2023Article
- N95 respirators: quantitative fit test pass rates and usability and comfort assessment by health care workers.The Medical journal of Australia · 2022Article
- P2/N95 filtering facepiece respirators: Results of a large-scale quantitative mask fit testing program in Australian health care workers.American journal of infection control · 2022Article
- A feasible route for the design and manufacture of customised respiratory protection through digital facial capture.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Enhancement of peripheral seal of medical face masks using a 3-dimensional-printed custom frame.Journal of the American Dental Association (1939) · 2021Article
- Role of respirators in controlling the spread of novel coronavirus (COVID-19) amongst dental healthcare providers: a review.International endodontic journal · 2020Review
- Do Various Respirator Models Fit the Workers in the Norwegian Smelting Industry?Safety and health at work · 2019Article
- Project BREATHE - Prototype Respirator Evaluation Utilizing Newly Proposed Respirator Test Criteria.Journal of the International Society for Respiratory Protection · 2017Article
- Tuberculosis Infection Control in Health-Care Facilities: Environmental Control and Personal Protection.Tuberculosis and respiratory diseases · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAn unbiased source of comparable respirator performance data would be helpful in setting up a hospital respiratory protection program.
methodsThe scientific literature was examined to assess the extent to which performance data (respirator fit, comfort and usability) from N95 filtering facepiece respirator (FFR) models are available to assist with FFR model selection and procurement decisions.
resultsTen studies were identified that met the search criteria for fit, whereas 5 studies met the criteria for comfort and usability.
conclusionAnalysis of these studies indicated that it is difficult to directly use the scientific literature to inform the FFR selection process because of differences in study populations, methodologies, and other factors. Although there does not appear to be a single best fitting FFR, studies demonstrate that fit testing programs can be designed to successfully fit nearly all workers with existing products. Comfort and usability are difficult to quantify. Among the studies found, no significant differences were noted.
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.