Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32395837›Full record

SynthesisThe British journal of surgery2020

Personal protective equipment for surgeons during COVID-19 pandemic: systematic review of availability, usage and rationing.

Z M Jessop, T D Dobbs, S R Ali, E Combellack, R Clancy, N Ibrahim, T H Jovic, A J Kaur, A Nijran, T B O'Neill and 1 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The British journal of surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 75 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
75citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

75 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. NCCP-ICS joint consensus-based clinical practice guidelines on medical thoracoscopy.Lung India : official organ of Indian Chest Society · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Z M JessopReconstructive Surgery and Regenerative Medicine Research Group, Swansea University Medical School, Institute of Life Science, University of Swansea, Swansea, UK.
T D DobbsReconstructive Surgery and Regenerative Medicine Research Group, Swansea University Medical School, Institute of Life Science, University of Swansea, Swansea, UK.
S R AliReconstructive Surgery and Regenerative Medicine Research Group, Swansea University Medical School, Institute of Life Science, University of Swansea, Swansea, UK.
E CombellackReconstructive Surgery and Regenerative Medicine Research Group, Swansea University Medical School, Institute of Life Science, University of Swansea, Swansea, UK.
R ClancyWelsh Centre for Burns and Plastic Surgery, Morriston Hospital, Swansea, UK.
N IbrahimReconstructive Surgery and Regenerative Medicine Research Group, Swansea University Medical School, Institute of Life Science, University of Swansea, Swansea, UK.
T H JovicReconstructive Surgery and Regenerative Medicine Research Group, Swansea University Medical School, Institute of Life Science, University of Swansea, Swansea, UK.
A J KaurWelsh Centre for Burns and Plastic Surgery, Morriston Hospital, Swansea, UK.
A NijranWelsh Centre for Burns and Plastic Surgery, Morriston Hospital, Swansea, UK.
T B O'NeillWelsh Centre for Burns and Plastic Surgery, Morriston Hospital, Swansea, UK.
I S WhitakerReconstructive Surgery and Regenerative Medicine Research Group, Swansea University Medical School, Institute of Life Science, University of Swansea, Swansea, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3922-2079

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSurgeons need guidance regarding appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) during the COVID-19 pandemic based on scientific evidence rather than availability. The aim of this article is to inform surgeons of appropriate PPE requirements, and to discuss usage, availability, rationing and future solutions.

methodsA systematic review was undertaken in accordance with PRISMA guidelines using MEDLINE, Embase and WHO COVID-19 databases. Newspaper and internet article sources were identified using Nexis. The search was complemented by bibliographic secondary linkage. The findings were analysed alongside guidelines from the WHO, Public Health England, the Royal College of Surgeons and specialty associations.

resultsOf a total 1329 articles identified, 95 studies met the inclusion criteria. Recommendations made by the WHO regarding the use of PPE in the COVID-19 pandemic have evolved alongside emerging evidence. Medical resources including PPE have been rapidly overwhelmed. There has been a global effort to overcome this by combining the most effective use of existing PPE with innovative strategies to produce more. Practical advice on all aspects of PPE is detailed in this systematic review.

conclusionAlthough there is a need to balance limited supplies with staff and patient safety, this should not leave surgeons treating patients with inadequate PPE.

Indexed as

Health Care RationingPractice Patterns, Physicians'SurgeonsCOVID-19Global HealthHumansInfection ControlPandemicsPersonal Protective Equipment

Identifiers

PMID32395837
PMCPMC7273092

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.