Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35286440›Full record

ArticleEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2022

Proof-of-concept of a new FFP2 mask adapted to Otolaryngological practice in pandemic: a prospective study.

Lisa G De Marrez, Thomas Radulesco, Carlos M Chiesa-Estomba, Stéphane Hans, Robin Baudouin, Marc Remacle, Sven Saussez, Justin Michel, Jerome R Lechien

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 54% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Lisa G De MarrezDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Foch Hospital, Paris Saclay University, Paris, France.
Thomas RadulescoDepartment of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, La Conception University Hospital, Marseille, France.
Carlos M Chiesa-EstombaDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, San Sebastian University Hospital, San Sebastian, Spain.
Stéphane HansDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Foch Hospital, Paris Saclay University, Paris, France.
Robin BaudouinDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Foch Hospital, Paris Saclay University, Paris, France.
Marc RemacleDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Eich Hospital, Luxembourg, Luxembourg.
Sven SaussezDepartment of Anatomy and Experimental Oncology, Mons School of Medicine, UMONS Research Institute for Health Sciences and Technology, University of Mons (UMons), Mons, Belgium.
Justin Michel *Department of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, La Conception University Hospital, Marseille, France.
Jerome R Lechien *Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Foch Hospital, Paris Saclay University, Paris, France. Jerome.Lechien@umons.ac.be.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0845-0845
Université Paris-Saclay · FRCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique · FRUniversity of Mons · BELuxembourg Institute of Health · LU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe objective of this study was to appreciate the tolerance and convenience of a new FFP2 mask allowed the realization of nasal examination in period of pandemic.

methodsFifty-one patients were prospectively recruited from two European hospitals to test the FFP2 mask prototype. The following outcomes were evaluated in patients after the clinical examination: fear about coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection; easiness of mask placement; tolerability; reassurance; and overall satisfaction about the use of this kind of mask in a pandemic context. Seven otolaryngologists evaluated the mask acceptance and usefulness in patients through a standardized physician-reported outcome questionnaire.

resultsFifty patients completed the evaluation. There were 25 males and 25 females. The mean age of patients was 41 years. Ninety percent of patients considered that the use of the mask reduced the risk to be infected during the examination. Seventy percent of patients reported high or very high satisfaction and should recommend mask to other patients in pandemic period. The realization of nasal examination was easier with optic compared with flexible trans-nasal examination (p = 0.001), which significantly impacted the satisfaction level of physician (p = 0.001). The physician difficulty to perform the examination significantly impacted the satisfactory of patient (p = 0.033).

conclusionThe new bioserenity FFP2 mask allows the realization of the trans-nasal endoscopic examination during a pandemic. The use of this mask requires little training period of physician. The use of this mask prototype is well received by patients who reported better perception of self-protection against the virus.

Indexed as

COVID-19PandemicsAdultFemaleHumansMaleMasksOtolaryngologistsProspective StudiesSARS-CoV-2COVID-19FFP2Head NeckInfectionLaryngologyMaskOtolaryngologyPandemicProtectionSARS-CoV-2Transmission

Identifiers

PMID35286440
PMCPMC8919900
OpenAlexW4220963202

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.