ReviewERJ open research2020
Protection of healthcare workers against transmission of
Review in ERJ open research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Knowledge, attitudes, and practices toward tuberculosis among Jordanian university students.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Determinants of latent tuberculosis infection among nurses at public health centers in Indonesia.Belitung nursing journal · 2022Article
- A position statement and practical guide to the use of particulate filtering facepiece respirators (N95, FFP2, or equivalent) for South African health workers exposed to respiratory pathogens includingAfrican journal of thoracic and critical care medicine · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEmployees in contact with infectious tuberculosis (TB) patients in healthcare facilities of low-incidence countries are still at considerable risk of acquiring TB infections. However, formal precautions recommended on the protection of healthcare workers may not only vary from country to country but also within a single country. The objective of this study was to compare current guidelines with respect to hospital infection control of TB, focusing on common shared priorities and discrepancies between sets of recommendations.
methodsFive types of procedures captured in guidelines of the World Health Organization, the United States of America, the United Kingdom and Germany are compared and the underlying evidence is discussed.
resultsUncontroversially, personal protection by respirators in the TB ward and during aerosol-generating procedures is key to reducing
conclusionsAlthough the current recommendations on protection of healthcare workers are otherwise homogeneous, there are considerable discrepancies that have important implications for daily practice.
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.