Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33707889›Full record

ArticleIndian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine2021

Health Problems and Skin Damages Caused by Personal Protective Equipment: Experience of Frontline Nurses Caring for Critical COVID-19 Patients in Intensive Care Units.

Sinu Jose, Maneesha C Cyriac, Manju Dhandapani

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
11.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 83 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Effect of Face Masking on Transmission of SARS-CoV-2.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Sinu JoseDepartment of Nursing, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7056-191X
Maneesha C CyriacDepartment of Nursing, Bel-Air College of Nursing, Panchgani, Maharashtra, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2697-0684
Manju DhandapaniNational Institute of Nursing Education, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3351-3841
Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the event of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) spread worldwide, frontline healthcare workers play a key role in the containment of this devastating pandemic, and to prevent the cross-transmission and gain confidence in battle with the pandemic, they are wearing personal protective equipment (PPE). AIM AND

objectiveTo explore the adverse health problems and skin reactions caused by the use of PPEs among the frontline nurses in the ICUs of COVID hospital. MATERIALS AND

methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted using an online-based questionnaire assessing the physical problems, and adverse skin reactions of PPEs were sent among the 150 frontline nurses in ICUs of COVID hospital. The collected data were analyzed using descriptive statistics.

resultsWe got 137 valid responses from frontline nurses, and the most common adverse health effects expressed by them were headache (73.4%), extreme sweating (59.6%), and difficulty in breathing (36.7%); 91.7% complained about the fogging of the goggle. Majority of frontline nurses expressed nasal bridge scarring (76.64%) and indentation and pain on the back of the ears (66.42%) as the adverse skin reactions after wearing N95 masks. The common skin problems identified due to double gloving of latex gloves were excessive skin soakage with sweat (70.07%) and skin chapping (19%). The protective clothing caused minimal adverse reactions, and excessive sweating (71.53%) was the most reported.

conclusionThe healthcare workers wearing PPE for a prolonged period show significant adverse effects, so appropriate strategies should be taken to prevent the adverse effects by designing effective PPEs and education of preventive measures among healthcare workers. HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE: Jose S, Cyriac MC, Dhandapani M. Health Problems and Skin Damages Caused by Personal Protective Equipment: Experience of Frontline Nurses Caring for Critical COVID-19 Patients in Intensive Care Units. Health Problems and Skin Damages Caused by Personal Protective Equipment: Experience of Frontline Nurses Caring for Critical COVID-19 Patients in Intensive Care Units. Indian J Crit Care Med 2021;25(2):134-139.

Indexed as

Adverse skin reactionsCoronavirusCOVID-19Frontline nursesHealth problemsPersonal protective equipmentPPE-related dermatitis

Identifiers

PMID33707889
PMCPMC7922454
OpenAlexW3126164017

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.