ArticleAmerican journal of otolaryngology
The FEES box: A novel barrier to contain particles during aerosol-generating procedures.
Article in American journal of otolaryngology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quantifying the Risk to Health Care Workers of Cough as an Aerosol Generating Event in an Ambulance Setting: A Research Report.Prehospital and disaster medicine · 2022Review
- COVID-19 in the Clinic: Aerosol Containment Mask for Endoscopic Otolaryngologic Clinic Procedures.Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeDue to the COVID-19 pandemic, aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) such as flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) have been deemed high-risk and in some cases restricted, indicating the need for additional personal protective equipment. The aim of this study was to erect and study a protective barrier for FEES. MATERIALS AND
methodsA PVC cube was constructed to fit over a patient while allowing for upright endoscopy. A plastic drape was fitted over the cube, and the protective barrier was subsequently named the "FEES Box." Three different particulate-generating tasks were carried out: sneezing, coughing, and spraying water from an atomizer bottle. Each task was completed within and without the FEES Box, and particulate was measured with a particle counter. The average particles/L detected during the three tasks, and baseline measurements, were statistically compared.
resultsWithout the FEES Box in place, the sneezing and spraying tasks resulted in a statistically significant increase in particles above baseline (p < 0.001 and p = 0.004, respectively); coughing particulate never reached levels significantly higher than baseline (p = 0.230). With use of the FEES Box, there was no statistically significant increase in particles above baseline in any of the three tasks.
conclusionThe FEES Box effectively contained particles generated during sneezes and an atomizer spray. It would also likely mitigate coughing particulate, but coughing did not generate a significant increase in particles above baseline. Further research is warranted to test the efficacy of the FEES Box in containing particulate matter during a complete FEES procedure.
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.