Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33189515›Full record

ArticleThe American journal of emergency medicine2021

Barrier enclosure use during aerosol-generating medical procedures: A scoping review.

Courtney Price, Maxim Ben-Yakov, Joseph Choi, Ani Orchanian-Cheff, Davy Tawadrous

Open access · greenAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in The American journal of emergency medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Courtney PriceFaculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada. Electronic address: cpric016@uottawa.ca.
Maxim Ben-YakovDivision of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Toronto General Hospital - Emergency Department, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada. Electronic address: maxim.benyakov@utoronto.ca.
Joseph ChoiDivision of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Toronto General Hospital - Emergency Department, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada. Electronic address: joseph.choi@utoronto.ca.
Ani Orchanian-CheffLibrary and Information Services, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada. Electronic address: ani.orchanian-cheff@uhn.ca.
Davy TawadrousDivision of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Toronto General Hospital - Emergency Department, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada. Electronic address: davy.tawadrous@uhn.ca.
Toronto General Hospital · CAUniversity Health Network · CAUniversity of Ottawa · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionBarrier enclosure devices were introduced to protect against infectious disease transmission during aerosol generating medical procedures (AGMP). Recent discussion in the medical community has led to new designs and adoption despite limited evidence. A scoping review was conducted to characterize devices being used and their performance.

methodsWe conducted a scoping review of formal databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CENTRAL, Scopus), grey literature, and hand-searched relevant journals. Forward and reverse citation searching was completed on included articles. Article/full-text screening and data extraction was performed by two independent reviewers. Studies were categorized by publication type, device category, intended medical use, and outcomes (efficacy - ability to contain particles; efficiency - time to complete AGMP; and usability - user experience).

resultsSearches identified 6489 studies and 123 met criteria for inclusion (k = 0.81 title/abstract, k = 0.77 full-text). Most articles were published in 2020 (98%, n = 120) as letters/commentaries (58%, n = 71). Box systems represented 42% (n = 52) of systems described, while plastic sheet systems accounted for 54% (n = 66). The majority were used for airway management (67%, n = 83). Only half of articles described outcome measures (54%, n = 67); 82% (n = 55) reporting efficacy, 39% (n = 26) on usability, and 15% (n = 10) on efficiency. Efficacy of devices in containing aerosols was limited and frequently dependent on use of suction devices.

conclusionsWhile use of various barrier enclosure devices has become widespread during this pandemic, objective data of efficacy, efficiency, and usability is limited. Further controlled studies are required before adoption into routine clinical practice.

Indexed as

AerosolsProtective DevicesAirway ManagementCOVID-19HumansInfection ControlInfectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-ProfessionalPandemicsSARS-CoV-2AerosolsAerosol boxAGMPBarrier enclosureCOVID-19Protected intubation

Identifiers

PMID33189515
PMCPMC7837026
OpenAlexW3036325274

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.