ArticleThe Journal of hospital infection2021
Real-life measurement of size-fractionated aerosol concentration in a plethysmography box during the COVID-19 pandemic and estimation of the associated viral load.
Article in The Journal of hospital infection, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- What Have We Learned About Transmission of Coronavirus Disease-2019: Implications for Pulmonary Function Testing and Pulmonary Procedures.Clinics in chest medicine · 2023Review
- International consensus on lung function testing during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.ERJ open research · 2022Review
- [Risk Management in Performing Post-Pandemic Pulmonary Function Tests].Open respiratory archivesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThere are concerns about pulmonary function tests (PFTs) being associated with aerosol generation and enhanced virus transmission. As a consequence, the number of PFTs was reduced significantly during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. However, there are no robust data supporting this fear.
objectivesTo perform real-life measurement of aerosol concentrations in a PFT laboratory to monitor the concentration of particles near the patient, and to model the associated potential viral load.
methodsTwo optical particle counters were used to sample the background concentration and the concentration of particles near the patient's mouth in a whole-body plethysmography box. Statistical evaluation of the measured particle concentration time series was completed. The particle exhalation rate was assessed based on the measured particle concentration data by applying the near-field/far-field theory. The number of exhaled viruses by an infected patient during the test was compared with the emission of viruses during quiet breathing and speaking.
resultsTwenty-five patients were included in the study. Eighteen patients showed a significant increase in aerosol concentration [mean 1910 (standard deviation 593) particles/L]. Submicron particles dominated the number size distribution of the generated particles, but large particles represented a higher volume fraction in the generated particles compared with background. An average gene exhalation rate of 0.2/min was estimated from this data. This is one order of magnitude higher than the release rate for the same infected person during quiet breathing, and of the same order of magnitude as the release rate during normal speaking.
conclusionsThis study demonstrated that PFTs are aerosol-generating procedures. Based on these results, the moderate increase in viral load does not underpin stopping such examinations.
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.