Trial reportMedicine2017
Comparing the protective performances of 3 types of N95 filtering facepiece respirators during chest compressions: A randomized simulation study.
Trial report in Medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- COVID-19 in cardiac arrest and infection risk to rescuers: A systematic review.Resuscitation · 2020Pooled it
- 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
- Trial
- Evaluating a rapid fit-testing method for N95 respirators in Chinese healthcare workers: a paired crossover simulation and diagnostic agreement study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest.Emergency medicine clinics of North America · 2023Review
- HALO CleanSpace PAPR evaluation: Communication, respiratory protection, and usability.Infection control and hospital epidemiology · 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
- Impact of Personal Protective Equipment on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Rescuer Safety.Emergency medicine international · 2023Article
- The effect of plastic tape seal to reduce face seal leak in respirator N-95 type 1860.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2022Article
- N95 respirators: quantitative fit test pass rates and usability and comfort assessment by health care workers.The Medical journal of Australia · 2022Article
- Article
- How to Maintain Safety and Maximize the Efficacy of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation in COVID-19 Patients: Insights from the Recent Guidelines.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Review
- Fit Test for N95 Filtering Facepiece Respirators and KF94 Masks for Healthcare Workers: a Prospective Single-center Simulation Study.Journal of Korean medical science · 2021Article
- Challenges, limitations, and solutions for orthodontists during the coronavirus pandemic: A review.American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics · 2021Review
- COVID-19 and cardiopulmonary resuscitation: an N95 respirator mask may not be adequate.British journal of anaesthesia · 2020Article
- N95 Filtering Facepiece Respirators during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Basics, Types, and Shortage Solutions.Malaysian orthopaedic journal · 2020Article
- Availability of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) Among US and Pakistani Doctors in COVID-19 Pandemic.Cureus · 2020Article
- Article
- N95 filtering facepiece respirators do not reliably afford respiratory protection during chest compression: A simulation study.The American journal of emergency medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveHealthcare providers in emergency departments should wear respirators for infection protection. However, the wearer's vigorous movements during cardiopulmonary resuscitation may affect the protective performance of the respirator. Herein, we aimed to assess the effects of chest compressions (CCs) on the protective performance of respirators.
methodsThis crossover study evaluated 30 healthcare providers from 1 emergency department who performed CC with real-time feedback. The first, second, and third groups started with a cup-type, fold-type, and valve-type respirator, respectively, after which the respirators were randomized for each group. The fit factors were measured using a quantitative fit testing device before and during the CC in each experiment. The protection rate was defined as the proportion of respirators achieving a fit factor ≥100.
resultsThe fold-type respirator had a significantly greater protection rate at baseline (100.0% ± 0.0%) compared to the cup-type (73.6% ± 39.6%, P = .003) and valve-type respirators (87.5% ± 30.3%, P = .012). During the CC, the fit factor values significantly decreased for the cup-type (44.9% ± 42.8%, P < .001) and valve-type respirators (59.5% ± 41.7%, P = .002), but not for the fold-type respirator (93.2% ± 21.7%, P = .095).
conclusionsThe protective performances of respirators may be influenced by CC. Healthcare providers should identify the respirator that provides the best fit for their intended tasks.
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.