Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32707180›Full record

ArticleChest2020

Characterization of Experimental and Clinical Bioaerosol Generation During Potential Aerosol-Generating Procedures.

Nathan Doggett, Chung-Wai Chow, Samira Mubareka

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Chest, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Bibliometric analysis of intestinal microbiota and lung diseases.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2024
    Article
  6. A new device for bronchoscopy for better protection.Turkish journal of medical sciences · 2022
    Article
  7. Pulmonary Procedures in the COVID-19 Era.Current pulmonology reports · 2022
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Nathan DoggettBiological Sciences, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, ON, Canada; Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Chung-Wai ChowUniversity Health Network, Division of Respirology, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Institute of Medical Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Samira MubarekaBiological Sciences, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, ON, Canada; Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. Electronic address: samira.mubareka@sunnybrook.ca.
Sunnybrook Research InstituteUniversity Health Network · CAUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDuring medical procedures with the potential to produce aerosols such as bronchoscopy, intubation, or CPR, health-care workers (HCWs) may be exposed to infectious bioaerosols. This scenario is of particular concern when high consequence pathogens such as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are circulating. Thousands of HCWs have been infected with SARS-CoV-2. However, the determinants of aerosol generation during medical procedures and their relative risk to HCWs remain poorly characterized. RESEARCH QUESTION: The goal of this study was to characterize aerosols produced during airway intubation by using an uninfected translational animal model and in human subjects undergoing elective aerosol-generating procedures. The study also determined the particle size distribution of generated particles. STUDY DESIGN AND

methodsAerosol generation was measured during highly controlled experimental (pig) intubations (N = 16) and elective bronchoscopies in uninfected patients (N = 49) using an optical particle counter. Recovery of normal respiratory flora was used as a surrogate for pathogen dispersion.

resultsThere was a small but significant (P = .03) decrease in 0.3 μm size particles during highly controlled pig intubations compared with baseline. The concentration of 1.0 μm and 5.0 μm aerosol particles did not significantly change, although oral bacteria were collected from the air. For elective patient bronchoscopies, there was a significant decrease in the generation of larger particles (1.0 μm and 5.0 μm) compared with baseline (P < .01); however, 18 of 39 (46%) patients showed increased aerosol production in 0.3 μm size particles, four of whom exhibited measurable increases.

interpretationAlthough the total amount of aerosols produced during intubation and bronchoscopy did not increase significantly relative to preprocedural levels, a small number of participants exhibited a measurable increase in submicron particle emission, meriting further research to delineate determinants of fine particle production during aerosol-generating procedures.

Indexed as

BronchoscopyInfectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-ProfessionalIntubation, IntratrachealParticle SizeParticulate MatterAerosolsAnimalsBiopsyBronchoalveolar LavageCoughCOVID-19Elective Surgical ProceduresHealth PersonnelHumansMicrobiotaOptical DevicesAerosolsParticulate Matteraerosol-generating proceduresbioaerosolsbronchoscopyparticle counts

Identifiers

PMID32707180
PMCPMC7373051
OpenAlexW3044129922

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.