ArticleAnesthesiology2021
Aerosol Retention Characteristics of Barrier Devices.
Article in Anesthesiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Portable, Foldable Negative-Pressure Aerosol-Containment System (FNPACS) for Aerosol Control During Aerosol-Generating Procedures.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Microbiological and Ergonomic Effects of Three Prototypes of a Device to Reduce Aerosol Dispersion in Dental Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.Dentistry journal · 2025Article
- An Individual Barrier Enclosure Actively Removing Aerosols for Airborne Isolation: A Vacuum Tent.Respiratory care · 2024Article
- A novel negative pressure isolation device reduces aerosol exposure: A randomized controlled trial.Trends in anaesthesia & critical care · 2023Article
- Efficiency, limitations, and familiarization of a novel negative pressure aerosol box for intubation: a simulation-based randomized crossover study.Clinical and experimental emergency medicine · 2023Article
- Use of a Negative Pressure Containment Pod Within Ambulance-Workspace During Pandemic Response.Journal of medical devices · 2023Article
- Minimally Required Personal Protective Equipment during Local Anesthesia Surgery in COVID-19: A Simulation Study.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2023Article
- Aerosol boxes for airway management in coronavirus disease patients: a clinical retrospective study in Mexico.Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care · 2022Article
- Investigations into the efficacy of a novel extubation-aerosol shield: a cough model study.Infection prevention in practice · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDisease severity in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may be associated with inoculation dose. This has triggered interest in intubation barrier devices to block droplet exposure; however, aerosol protection with these devices is not known. This study hypothesized that barrier devices reduce aerosol outside of the barrier.
methodsAerosol containment in closed, semiclosed, semiopen, and open barrier devices was investigated: (1) "glove box" sealed with gloves and caudal drape, (2) "drape tent" with a drape placed over a frame, (3) "slit box" with armholes and caudal end covered by vinyl slit diaphragms, (4) original "aerosol box," (5) collapsible "interlocking box," (6) "simple drape" over the patient, and (7) "no barrier." Containment was investigated by (1) vapor instillation at manikin's right arm with video-assisted visual evaluation and (2) submicrometer ammonium sulfate aerosol particles ejected through the manikin's mouth with ventilation and coughs. Samples were taken from standardized locations inside and around the barriers using a particle counter and a mass spectrometer. Aerosol evacuation from the devices was measured using standard hospital suction, a surgical smoke evacuator, and a Shop-Vac.
resultsVapor experiments demonstrated leakage via arm holes and edges. Only closed and semiclosed devices and the aerosol box reduced aerosol particle counts (median [25th, 75th percentile]) at the operator's mouth compared to no barrier (combined median 29 [-11, 56], n = 5 vs. 157 [151, 166], n = 5). The other barrier devices provided less reduction in particle counts (133 [128, 137], n = 5). Aerosol evacuation to baseline required 15 min with standard suction and the Shop-Vac and 5 min with a smoke evacuator.
conclusionsBarrier devices may reduce exposure to droplets and aerosol. With meticulous tucking, the glove box and drape tent can retain aerosol during airway management. Devices that are not fully enclosed may direct aerosol toward the laryngoscopist. Aerosol evacuation reduces aerosol content inside fully enclosed devices. Barrier devices must be used in conjunction with body-worn personal protective equipment. EDITOR’S PERSPECTIVE:
Indexed as
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.