Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28531183›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

A scoping review on bio-aerosols in healthcare and the dental environment.

Charifa Zemouri, Hans de Soet, Wim Crielaard, Alexa Laheij

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 122 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
122citing papers in PubMed, 7 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

122 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. How to use laser safely in times of COVID-19: Systematic review.Special care in dentistry : official publication of the American Association of Hospital Dentists, the Academy of Dentistry for the Handicapped, and the American Society for Geriatric Dentistry · 2021
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review

62 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors.

Charifa ZemouriDepartment of Preventive Dentistry, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam & Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9211-3744
Hans de SoetDepartment of Preventive Dentistry, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam & Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Wim CrielaardDepartment of Preventive Dentistry, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam & Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Alexa LaheijDepartment of Preventive Dentistry, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam & Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBio-aerosols originate from different sources and their potentially pathogenic nature may form a hazard to healthcare workers and patients. So far no extensive review on existing evidence regarding bio-aerosols is available.

objectivesThis study aimed to review evidence on bio-aerosols in healthcare and the dental setting. The objectives were 1) What are the sources that generate bio-aerosols?; 2) What is the microbial load and composition of bio-aerosols and how were they measured?; and 3) What is the hazard posed by pathogenic micro-organisms transported via the aerosol route of transmission?

methodsSystematic scoping review design. Searched in PubMed and EMBASE from inception to 09-03-2016. References were screened and selected based on abstract and full text according to eligibility criteria. Full text articles were assessed for inclusion and summarized. The results are presented in three separate objectives and summarized for an overview of evidence.

resultsThe search yielded 5,823 studies, of which 62 were included. Dental hand pieces were found to generate aerosols in the dental settings. Another 30 sources from human activities, interventions and daily cleaning performances in the hospital also generate aerosols. Fifty-five bacterial species, 45 fungi genera and ten viruses were identified in a hospital setting and 16 bacterial and 23 fungal species in the dental environment. Patients with certain risk factors had a higher chance to acquire Legionella in hospitals. Such infections can lead to irreversible septic shock and death. Only a few studies found that bio-aerosol generating procedures resulted in transmission of infectious diseases or allergic reactions.

conclusionBio-aerosols are generated via multiple sources such as different interventions, instruments and human activity. Bio-aerosols compositions reported are heterogeneous in their microbiological composition dependent on the setting and methodology. Legionella species were found to be a bio-aerosol dependent hazard to elderly and patients with respiratory complaints. But all aerosols can be can be hazardous to both patients and healthcare workers.

Indexed as

AerosolsAir MicrobiologyAir Pollution, IndoorBacteriaColony Count, MicrobialCross InfectionDental EquipmentEnvironmental MonitoringFungiHealth FacilitiesHumansVirusesAerosols

Identifiers

PMID28531183
PMCPMC5439730

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.