Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34963713›Full record

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

Prediction of N95 Respirator Fit from Fogging of Eyeglasses: A Pilot Study.

Sandy Kyaw, Moira Johns, Rimen Lim, Warren C Stewart, Natalia Rojas, Solomon R Thambiraj, Yahya Shehabi, Sumesh Arora

Abstract 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 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Clearing the Fog on the Use of N95 Mask.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2021
    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

8 authors.

Sandy KyawDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4750-652X
Moira JohnsDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5532-1723
Rimen LimDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3552-1856
Warren C StewartDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3048-9516
Natalia RojasDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7725-8988
Solomon R ThambirajDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5107-9060
Yahya ShehabiClinical School of Medicine, University of New South Wales.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4707-7462
Sumesh AroraDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2065-3522

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

AIM AND

objectiveFogging of eyeglasses while wearing N95 respirators is common. It is commonly held that the N95 respirator has a poor fit if there is fogging of eyeglasses. We conducted this prospective, pilot study to determine if fogging of eyeglasses predicts poor fit of N95 respirator. MATERIALS AND

methodsSeventy volunteer healthcare workers from a tertiary intensive care unit in Sydney, Australia participated. The participants donned one of the following N95 respirators: three-panel flat-fold respirator (3M 1870), cup-shaped respirator (3M 1860), or a duckbill respirator. After a satisfactory "user seal check" as recommended by the manufacturer, the participants donned eyeglasses and checked for fogging. A quantitative fit test (QnFT) of the respirator was then performed (using PortaCount Respirator Fit Tester 8048, TSI Inc., Minnesota, USA). A fit factor of <100 on quantitative fit testing indicates poor fit. The sensitivity and specificity for fogging of eyeglasses (index test) to predict the poor fit of N95 respirator was determined, compared to QnFT (gold standard test).

resultsFogging of eyeglasses as a predictor of poor respirator fit (i.e., fit factor <100 on QnFT) had sensitivity of 71% (95% CI, 54-85%) and specificity 46% (95% CI, 29-63%). The odds ratio of fogging as a predictor for poor fit was 2.10 (95% CI, 0.78-5.67), with a two-tailed

conclusionFogging of eyeglasses is neither a sensitive nor a specific predictor for poor fit of N95 respirators. HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE: Kyaw S, Johns M, Lim R, Stewart WC, Rojas N, Thambiraj SR,

Indexed as

EyeglassesHealthcare workersInfectious diseaseIntensive careN95 respiratorsOccupational health

Identifiers

PMID34963713
PMCPMC8664036

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.