Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33360295›Full record

ReviewPublic health2021

Comparative efficacy of respiratory personal protective equipment against viral respiratory infectious diseases in healthcare workers: a network meta-analysis.

X Yin, X Wang, S Xu, C He

Open access · greenAbstract readReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.0field-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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Bayesian meta-analysis now - let's do it.Croatian medical journal · 2020
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

X YinClinical Nursing Teaching and Research Section, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China; Department of Emergency Medicine, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China; Department of Nursing, Medical College, Hunan Normal University, Changsha, Hunan, China.
X WangDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China.
S XuMelbourne Dental School, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
C HeFaculty of Nursing, School of Medicine, Hunan Normal University, Changsha, Hunan, China. Electronic address: hecaiyunhnu@126.com.
Central South University · CNHunan Normal University · CNThe University of Melbourne · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveWith the epidemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the healthcare workers (HCWs) require proper respiratory personal protective equipment (rPPE) against viral respiratory infectious diseases (VRIDs). It is necessary to evaluate which type of mask and manner of wearing is the best suitable rPPE for preventing the VRID. STUDY

designA Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed to comprehensively analyze the protective efficacy of various rPPE.

methodsThis network meta-analysis protocol was registered in an international prospective register of systematic reviews (CRD42020179489). Electronic databases were searched for cluster randomized control trials (RCTs) of comparing the effectiveness of rPPE and wearing manner in preventing HCWs from VRID. The primary outcome was the incidence of laboratory-confirmed viral respiratory infection reported as an odds ratio (OR) with the associated 95% credibility interval (CrI). The secondary outcome was the incidence of clinical respiratory illness (CRI) reported as an OR with the associated 95% CrI. Surface under the cumulative ranking curve analysis (SUCRA) provided a ranking of each rPPE according to the primary outcome and the secondary outcome as data supplement.

resultsSix studies encompassing 12,265 HCWs were included. In terms of the incidence of laboratory-confirmed viral respiratory infection, the continuous wearing of N95 respirators (network OR, 0.48; 95% CrI: 0.27 to 0.86; SUCRA score, 85.4) showed more effective than the control group. However, in terms of reducing the incidence of CRI, there was no rPPE showing superior protective effectiveness.

conclusionsThere are significant differences in preventive efficacy among current rPPE. Our result suggests that continuous wearing of N95 respirators on the whole shift can serve as the best preventive rPPE for HCWs from the VRID.

Indexed as

MasksPersonal Protective EquipmentRespiratory Protective DevicesAdultBayes TheoremCommunicable Disease ControlCOVID-19Health PersonnelHumansRespiratory Tract InfectionsSARS-CoV-2Healthcare workersN95 respiratorNetwork meta-analysisSurgical maskViral respiratory infectious diseases

Identifiers

PMID33360295
PMCPMC7755580
OpenAlexW3116659637

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.