ArticleOccupational medicine (Oxford, England)2020
COVID-19: smoke testing of surgical mask and respirators.
Article in Occupational medicine (Oxford, England), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- COVID-19 infection risk by open and laparoscopic surgical smoke: A systematic review of the literature.The surgeon : journal of the Royal Colleges of Surgeons of Edinburgh and Ireland · 2021Pooled it
- The seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 during the first wave in Europe 2020: A systematic review.PloS one · 2021Pooled it
- Surgical smoke: a matter of hygiene, toxicology, and occupational health.GMS hygiene and infection control · 2024Review
- Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions against COVID-19 Causing a Lower Trend in Age of LHON Onset.Genes · 2023Article
- Effects of Target Variables on Interpersonal Distance Perception for Young Taiwanese during the COVID-19 Pandemic.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Microstructural evaluation and recommendations for face masks in community use to reduce the transmission of respiratory infectious diseases.Computer methods and programs in biomedicine · 2022Article
- Reducing the risk of viral contamination during the coronavirus pandemic by using a protective curtain in the operating room.Patient safety in surgery · 2022Article
- One year of surgical mask testing at the University of Bologna labs: Lessons learned from data analysis.Separation and purification technology · 2022Article
- A simple surgical mask modification to pass N95 respirator-equivalent fit testing standards during the COVID-19 pandemic.PloS one · 2022Article
- Dentists' Working Conditions during the First COVID-19 Pandemic Lockdown: An Online Survey.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- A simple and cheap aerosol penetrometer for filter testing using an electronic cigarette.Open research Europe · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFluid Resistant Surgical Masks have been implemented in UK personal protective equipment (PPE) guidelines for COVID-19 for all care sites that do not include aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs). FFP3 masks are used in AGP areas. Concerns from the ENT and plastic surgery communities out with intensive care units have questioned this policy. Emerging evidence on cough clouds and health care worker deaths has suggested that a review is required.
aimsTo test the efficacy of Fluid Resistant Surgical Mask with and without adaptions for respiratory protection. To test the efficacy of FFP and FFP3 regarding fit testing and usage.
methodsA smoke chamber test of 5 min to model an 8-h working shift of exposure while wearing UK guideline PPE using an inspiratory breathing mouthpiece under the mask. Photographic data were used for comparison.
resultsThe Fluid Resistant Surgical Mask gave no protection to inhaled smoke particles. Modifications with tape and three mask layers gave slight benefit but were not considered practical. FFP3 gave complete protection to inhaled smoke but strap tension needs to be 'just right' to prevent facial trauma. Facial barrier creams are an infection risk.
conclusionsSurgical masks give no protection to respirable particles. Emerging evidence on cough clouds and health care worker deaths suggests the implementation of a precautionary policy of FFP3 for all locations exposed to symptomatic or diagnosed COVID-19 patients. PPE fit testing and usage policy need to improve to include daily buddy checks for FFP3 users.
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.