Trial reportWiener klinische Wochenschrift2022
Reusable respirators as personal protective equipment in clinical practice : User experience in times of a pandemic.
Trial report in Wiener klinische Wochenschrift, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Evaluation of the protective efficacy of a user seal check for N95 respirators through quantitative fit testing in an ambulance crew.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Reusable Personal Protective Equipment Viewed Through the Lens of Sustainability.International dental journal · 2024Review
- Streamlining Regulatory Oversight of Respirators Used in Health Care Settings Will Improve Worker Protection.NAM perspectives · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe novel strain of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is highly contagious; therefore, special emphasis must be given to personal protective equipment for healthcare workers. Reusable elastomeric respirators were previously used in intensive care units (ICU). These respirators include full or half masks and devices modified to accommodate a filter. Although the general comfort of masks used in the ICU has been studied, data comparing multiple types of masks during a pandemic are missing.
methodsA prospective randomized trial was conducted in an ICU. After standardized training, participants were randomized to use one of three mask types (full, half or snorkelling mask), each fitted with a filter equivalent to a class 3 particle-filtering half mask (FFP3) during one shift. The main outcomes were characteristics of using the mask itself (donning/doffing, quality of seal, cleaning), working conditions with the mask (vision, comfort, perceived safety, communication) and a subjective comparison to single-use FFP2/3 masks.
resultsA total of 30 participants were included in the trial, randomized to 10 participants per group. The masks were worn 6.4 (4.5) times (mean SD) for a total duration of 132 (66) min per shift. The tested masks were rated 7 (2.6) (mean SD) in comparison to FFP2/3 on a Likert scale (0: worst, 10: best). Significant differences between the masks were found in respect to comfort (7/4/8), donning (8/7/9), overall rating (8/5/8) and comparison to single-use FFP2/3 masks (9/7/9; full-, half, snorkelling mask).
conclusionUsing reusable elastomeric masks is feasible in clinical practice. Full face masks were significantly better in terms of comfort, donning, overall rating and in comparison to single-use FFP2/3 masks.
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.