Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32438427›Full record

SynthesisAmerican journal of perinatology2020

N95 Filtering Facepiece Respirator Use during Pregnancy: A Systematic Review.

Jared T Roeckner, Nevena Krstić, Bradley H Sipe, Sarah G Običan

Open access · bronzeAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in American journal of perinatology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. A descriptive audit of healthcare workers exposed to COVID-19 at a tertiary care center in India.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2021
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Conspiracy theories in the era of COVID-19: A tale of two pandemics.International journal of clinical practice · 2021
    Article
  9. Commentary: Physiological and Psychological Impact of Face Mask Usage during the COVID-19 Pandemic.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jared T RoecknerDivision of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of South Florida, Morsani College of Medicine, Tampa, Florida.ORCID 0000-0002-0770-7477
Nevena KrstićDivision of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of South Florida, Morsani College of Medicine, Tampa, Florida.
Bradley H SipeDivision of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of South Florida, Morsani College of Medicine, Tampa, Florida.
Sarah G ObičanDivision of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of South Florida, Morsani College of Medicine, Tampa, Florida.
University of South Florida · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis study was aimed to systematically review the use of filtering facepiece respirators, such asN95 masks, during pregnancy. STUDY

designA comprehensive search for primary literature using Medline, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov was conducted from inception until April 2020 to find articles reporting outcomes of pregnant women using filtering facepiece respirator (FFR). Studies were selected if they included the use of FFR in pregnant women and reported an outcome of interest including physiologic changes (heart rate, respiratory rate, pulse oximetry, and fetal heart rate tracing) or subjective measures (thermal or exertional discomfort or fit). The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment scale was used to assess the risk of bias. The main outcome was to describe the physiologic changes in pregnant women compared with nonpregnant women. Due to the small number of studies and heterogeneity of reported outcomes a meta-analysis was not conducted. Results of the studies were synthesized into a summary of evidence table.

resultsWe identified four studies, three cohort studies and one crossover study, comprising 42 women using FFR during pregnancy. Risk of bias was judged to be low. Studies were consistent in showing no significant increase in maternal heart rate, respiratory rate, oxygen saturation, and fetal heart rate between pregnant and nonpregnant women using N95 FFRs for short durations. Repeat fit testing was not supported for women gaining the recommended amount of weight during pregnancy. No evidence was found to reach conclusions about prolonged N95 FFR use in pregnancy.

conclusionLimited duration N95 FFR use during pregnancy is unlikely to impart risk to the pregnant women or her fetus. KEY POINTS: · Limited N95 use unlikely to impart risk to pregnant woman/fetus.. · Prolonged N95 use in pregnancy is unstudied.. · Repeat fit testing in pregnancy likely unnecessary..

Indexed as

Carbon DioxideEquipment DesignFemaleFetal HeartHeart RateHumansN95 RespiratorsOxygenPregnancyRespiratory RateRisk AssessmentCarbon DioxideOxygen

Identifiers

PMID32438427
PMCPMC7416223
OpenAlexW3027330696

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.