ArticlePloS one2021
Online survey on healthcare skin reactions for wearing medical-grade protective equipment against COVID-19 in Hubei Province, China.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Skin Problems in the Facial Area due to the Use of Personal Protective Equipment in Healthcare Workers: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical nursing · 2025Pooled it
- Contact dermatitis caused by prevention measures during the COVID-19 pandemic: a narrative review.Frontiers in public health · 2023Pooled it
- Facial dermatoses induced by face masks: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.Contact dermatitis · 2022Pooled it
- Protective equipment-related pressure ulcers in healthcare workers during COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review.Journal of tissue viability · 2022Pooled it
- Characterisation of superficial corneocytes in skin areas of the face exposed to prolonged usage of respirators by healthcare professionals during COVID-19 pandemic.Journal of tissue viability · 2023Article
- Hand Eczema in Apprentice Nurses during the COVID-19 Pandemic after a Skin Prevention Program.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Adherence to safety precautions in the operation theatre among anaesthesiologists in the COVID era.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2022Article
- Physical problems and fatigue level of nurses during the COVID-19 pandemic.Nursing forum · 2022Article
- A hand-targeted auxiliary personal protective equipment for intervention of fomite transmission of viruses.Bioengineering & translational medicine · 2022Article
- Personal protective equipment (PPE) related adverse skin reactions among healthcare workers at the main COVID-19 isolation center in Barbados.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- A Clinico Epidemiological Study of Adverse Cutaneous Manifestations on Using Personal Protective Equipment Among Health Care Workers During Covid Pandemic in a Tertiary Care Centre.Indian journal of dermatologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
With the spread of Coronavirus Disease 2019 globally, more than 40,000 healthcare staff rushed to Wuhan, Hubei Province to fight against this threatening disease. All staff had to wear personal protective equipment (PPE) for several hours when caring for patients, which resulted in adverse skin reactions and injuries. In this study, we used an online questionnaire to collect the self-reported skin damages among the first-line medical staff in the epidemic. The questionnaire was designed by four front-line wound care nurses and then revised through Delphi consultants. Items mainly focused on the adverse skin reactions and preventive strategies. The survey was distributed through phone application from March 15th to March 20th and received 275 responses in total. The prevalence of skin reactions (212, 77.09%) was high in both head and hands. The common clinical symptoms of skin reactions were redness, device-like mark, and burning pain in face; and dryness, dermatitis, and itch/irritation in hands. Three risk factors included gender, level of protection, and daily wearing time of PPE were identified that caused skin reactions among medical staff. 150 of 275 (54.55%) participants took preventive strategies like prophylactic dressings, however, more than 75% users had little knowledge about dressings. We suggest the frontline staff strengthened the protection of skin integrity and reduced the prevalence of adverse skin reactions after professional education.
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.