ArticleBritish dental journal2021
Audit of qualitative fit testing for FFP3 respirators.
Article in British dental journal, 2021. 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.
- Improving the fit of filtering facepiece respirators.British dental journal · 2022Article
- Respiratory protection clarification.British dental journal · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Dental team members require fit testing for respirators to deliver aerosol generating procedures (AGPs) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Five general dental practitioners (GDPs) in Yorkshire and the Humber were trained to fit test staff at urgent dental care sites (UDCs) with filtering facepiece (FFP3) respirators.Aim To review the quality of fit test records and provide an overview of the outcome of fit testing of UDC staff.Method Audit of fit test records for FFP3 respirators against Health and Safety Executive standards.Results Six percent of records had missing or incomplete data and 6% of fit test records required follow-up. Of 583 people fit tested with an FFP3 respirator, 80.6% (470/583) passed the test and 19.4% (113/583) failed. Of those, 479 individuals were fitted with a 3M 1873V respirator, of which 82.7% (396/479) passed the test and 17.3% (83/479) failed.Discussion The audit enabled efficient resolution of problems associated with fit testing, informed learning needs and highlighted that a significant proportion of individuals are unable to wear certain makes/models of respirators.Conclusion GDPs have been successfully trained to provide fit testing and make accurate fit test records. The high fit test failure rate for FFP3 respirators has important ramifications for delivery of safe dental care during the pandemic.
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.