Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32835061›Full record

ArticleEthics, medicine, and public health

Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) Guidelines, adaptations and lessons during the COVID-19 pandemic.

K Woolley, R Smith, S Arumugam

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ethics, medicine, and public health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Impact of VieScope® on first-attempt success during simulated COVID-19 patients intubation: A randomized cross-over simulation trial.Ulusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES · 2023
    Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

3 authors.

K WoolleyFrank H. Netter MD School of Medicine, Quinnipiac University, North Haven CT, USA.
R SmithFrank H. Netter MD School of Medicine, Quinnipiac University, North Haven CT, USA.
S ArumugamWoodland Anesthesiology Associates, St. Francis Hospital, Hartford CT, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic has placed unprecedented strain on the American healthcare system. Personal protective equipment (PPE) remains critical in keeping healthcare providers healthy and safe. The sudden increase in demand as well as the limited availability places increased risk on providers which may inhibit their ability to effectively manage patients. The purpose of this brief article is to review the recommended guidelines for PPE usage and compare them to how medical societies have adapted and responded to decreased supply, as well as public response.

Indexed as

CoronavirusCOVID-19Personal protective equipmentPPE

Identifiers

PMID32835061
PMCPMC7298470

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.