ArticleInfection prevention in practice2022
Investigations into the efficacy of a novel extubation-aerosol shield: a cough model study.
Article in Infection prevention in practice, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPhysicians have had to perform numerous extubation procedures during the prolonged coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID 19) pandemic. Future pandemics caused by unknown pathogen may also present a risk of exposure to infectious droplets and aerosols.
aimThis study evaluated the ability of a newly developed aerosol barrier, "Extubation-Aerosol (EA)-Shield" to provide maximum protection from aerosol exposure during extubation via an aerosolised particle count and high-quality visualisation assessments.
methodsWe employed a cough model having parameters similar to humans and used micron oil aerosol as well as titanium dioxide as aerosol tracers. Aerosol barrier techniques employing a face mask (group M) and EA-Shield (group H) were compared.
findingsThe primary outcome was the difference in the number of particles contacting the physician's face before and after extubation. The maximum distances of aerosol dispersal after extubation were measured as the secondary outcomes. All aerosolised particles of the two tracers were significantly smaller in group H than in group M (p < 0.05). In addition, the sagittal and axial maximum distances and sagittal areas of aerosol dispersal for 3, 5, and 10 s after extubation were significantly smaller in group H than in group M (p < 0.05).
conclusionThis model indicates that EA-Shield could be highly effective in reducing aerosol exposure during extubation. Therefore, we recommend using it as an aerosol barrier when an infectious aerosol risk is suspected.
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.