ArticleDermatologic therapy2022
Adverse skin reactions to personal protective equipment during COVID-19 pandemic in Italian health care workers.
Article in Dermatologic therapy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Influencing factors of medical device-related pressure ulcers in medical personnel during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of tissue viability · 2023Pooled it
- Contact dermatitis caused by prevention measures during the COVID-19 pandemic: a narrative review.Frontiers in public health · 2023Pooled it
- Infection prevention and control measures for Ebola disease and their outcomes from the perspective of health care workers: a mixed-methods study.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Exposome involvement in the development of acne vulgaris.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- Prescribing and Dispensing of Oral Isotretinoin and Noncompliance with Recommendations in France before and during the COVID-19 Pandemic.Dermatology and therapy · 2025Article
- Article
- Occupational Skin Dermatitis among Healthcare Workers Associated with the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Review of the Literature.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Physical discomforts, feeling of the high work intensity and the related risk factors of the frontline medical staff during COVID-19 epidemic: an early-outbreak, national survey in China.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Return to work after Post-COVID: describing affected employees' perceptions of personal resources, organizational offerings and care pathways.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Adverse skin reactions to personal protective equipment during COVID-19 pandemic in Italian health care workers.Dermatologic therapy · 2022Article
- Impacts of COVID-19 Pandemic on Dermatology Outpatient Department at a Tertiary Hospital in Eastern China: A Pre-Post Study.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To avoid exposure to SARS-COV-2, healthcare professionals must use personal protective equipment (PPE). Their use has been related to a series of adverse effects; the most frequent adverse events were headache, dyspnoea, and pressure injuries. Skin adverse effects are very common, including contact dermatitis, itching, erythema, and acneiform eruptions. The objective of this study is to evaluate the skin problems caused by personal protection equipment (PPE) in health care workers (HCWs) and to individuate eventual risk factors. From May to June 2020 a retrospective observational multi-centric study conducted by an online survey sent by email, involving 10 hospital centers, was performed. We considered as independent variables gender and age, occupational group and sector, time of utilization, type and material of PPE. We tested 3 types of PPE: gloves, bonnet, and mask for different time of utilization (<1, 1-3, 3-6, >6 h). We performed a multiple logistic regression model to correlate them with skin adverse events occurrence. Among all the 1184 participants, 292 workers reported a dermatological pathology: 45 (15.41%) had psoriasis, 54 (18.49%) eczema, 38 (13.01%) acne, 48 (16.44%) seborrheic dermatitis, and 107 (36.64%) other. In our sample previous inflammatory dermatological conditions, female sex, prolonged use of PPE were significant risk factors for developing skin related adverse events considering all the PPE considered. The use of PPE is still mandatory in the hospital setting and skin adverse reactions still represent a global problem. Although data from Europe are limited, our study highlighted the importance of the problem of PPE skin reactions in a large sample of Italian healthcare professionals.
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.