Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31517973›Full record

Observational studyClinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America2019

Evaluation of a Redesigned Personal Protective Equipment Gown.

Frank A Drews, Diane Mulvey, Kristina Stratford, Matthew H Samore, Jeanmarie Mayer

Open access · hybridAbstract readObservational Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study in Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Infection prevention behaviors and perceptions of nurses in a medical intensive care unit.Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Dermatologic problems associated with personal protective equipment in health-care workers managing COVID-19 patients.Journal of research in medical sciences : the official journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences · 2022
    Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Frank A DrewsDepartment of Psychology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
Diane MulveyDivision of Epidemiology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
Kristina StratfordDivision of Epidemiology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
Matthew H SamoreDivision of Epidemiology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
Jeanmarie MayerDivision of Epidemiology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
University of Utah · US

Funding

Treatment of HIV- and HIV+ Patients with HPV16+ CIN2/3 Using pNGLV4a-hCRTE6E7L2 DNA vaccine administered intramuscularly via electroporationP50CA098252 · NCI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI Richard Bruce Roden · 2003 to 2026
$53.5M
NCI NIH HHS P50 CA098252
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn healthcare, the goal of personal protective equipment (PPE) is to protect healthcare personnel (HCP) and patients from body fluids and infectious organisms via contact, droplet, or airborne transmission. The critical importance of using PPE properly is highlighted by 2 potentially fatal viral infections, severe acute respiratory syndrome-associated coronavirus and Ebola virus, where HCP became infected while caring for patients due to errors in the use of PPE. However, PPE in dealing with less dangerous, but highly infectious organisms is important as well. This work proposes a framework to test and evaluate PPE with a focus on gown design.

methodsAn observational study identified issues with potential for contamination related to gown use. After redesigning the existing gown, a high-fidelity patient simulator study with 40 HCP as participants evaluated the gown redesign using 2 commonly performed tasks. Variables of interest were nonadherence to procedural standards, use problems with the gown during task performance, and usability and cognitive task load ratings of the standard and redesigned gowns.

resultsWhile no differences were found in terms of nonadherence and use problems between the current and the redesigned gown, differences in usability and task load ratings suggested that the redesigned gown is perceived more favorably by HCP.

conclusionsThis work proposes a framework to guide the evaluation of PPE. The results suggest that the current design of the PPE gown can be improved in usability and user satisfaction. Although our data did not find an increase in adherence to protocol when using the redesigned gown, it is likely that higher usability and lower task load could result in higher adherence over longer periods of use.

Indexed as

Cross InfectionEvaluation Studies as TopicHealth PersonnelHemorrhagic Fever, EbolaHumansInfectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-ProfessionalPersonal Protective EquipmentProtective ClothingSevere Acute Respiratory SyndromeVirus DiseasesevaluationgownPPEusability

Identifiers

PMID31517973
PMCPMC6761366
OpenAlexW2972699016

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.