Trial reportMedicine2019
Comparison of fit factors among healthcare providers working in the Emergency Department Center before and after training with three types of N95 and higher filter respirators.
Trial report in Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- The development of disaster preparedness education for public: a scoping review.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Magnetic resonance imaging respirators: a randomized crossover trial to assess respiratory protection, usability, and comfort.Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2024Article
- Comparison of the inward leakage rate between N95 filtering facepiece respirators and modified surgical masks during the COVID-19 pandemic.Environmental health and preventive medicine · 2024Article
- Effectiveness of fit testing versus fit checking for healthcare workers respiratory protective equipment: A systematic review.International journal of nursing sciences · 2023Review
- Quantitative fit testing of filtering face-piece respirators during the COVID-19 pandemic reveals anthropometric deficits in most respirators available in Iran.Journal of environmental health science & engineering · 2021Article
- 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
- Quadrupling the N95 Supply during the COVID-19 Crisis with an Innovative 3D-Printed Mask Adaptor.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Personal Protective Equipment for Healthcare Workers during the COVID-19 Pandemic.Infection & chemotherapy · 2020Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionN95 or higher filtering respirators have been recommended in healthcare settings, although there is still a risk of infection due to the improper selection and wearing of respirators. We aimed to assess the effects of training with N95 or higher filter respirators on the protection performance of respirators among healthcare providers in the emergency medical center (EMC).
methodsThis randomized crossover study evaluated 23 healthcare providers. Quantitative fit tests (QNFTs) were performed before and after training using three types of N95 or higher filter respirators (cup-type, fold-type, valve-type). Training was performed by lecture, real-time feedback, and fit check. The primary outcome was the fit factor, and the secondary outcomes were overall fit factor, adequate protection rate, and respiratory preference.
resultsFit factors, overall fit factor, and adequate protection rate were higher after training than before training for the 3 types of respirators (all P < .05). For normal breathing, fit factors before and after training were 121 (10-185) vs 192 (161-200) for cup-type, 200 (39-200) vs 200 (200-200) for fold-type, and 85 (18-157) vs 173 (117-200) for valve-type. For normal breathing, the adequate protection rates before and after training were 62 (0-100) vs 100 (90-100) for cup-type, 100 (0-100) vs 100 (100-100) for fold-type, and 19 (0-100) vs 100 (44-100) for valve-type (all P < .05). The most preferred respirator type was the valve-type (10 persons, 45.5%).
conclusionsTraining on wearing an N95 or higher respirator improved the protection performance of respirators among healthcare providers working in the EMC. The selection of proper respirators and training would be beneficial to the safety of healthcare providers.
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.