Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35535021›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of infectious diseases2022

Fit-Tested N95 Masks Combined With Portable High-Efficiency Particulate Air Filtration Can Protect Against High Aerosolized Viral Loads Over Prolonged Periods at Close Range.

Shane A Landry, Dinesh Subedi, Jeremy J Barr, Martin I MacDonald, Samantha Dix, Donna M Kutey, Darren Mansfield, Garun S Hamilton, Bradley A Edwards, Simon A Joosten

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of infectious diseases, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Shane A LandryDepartment of Physiology, School of Biomedical Sciences and Biomedical Discovery Institute, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9041-3655
Dinesh SubediSchool of Biological Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
Jeremy J BarrSchool of Biological Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
Martin I MacDonaldMonash Lung, Sleep, Allergy and Immunology, Monash Health, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
Samantha DixMonash Nursing and Midwifery, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
Donna M KuteyMonash Nursing and Midwifery, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
Darren MansfieldMonash Lung, Sleep, Allergy and Immunology, Monash Health, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
Garun S HamiltonMonash Lung, Sleep, Allergy and Immunology, Monash Health, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
Bradley A EdwardsDepartment of Physiology, School of Biomedical Sciences and Biomedical Discovery Institute, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Simon A JoostenMonash Lung, Sleep, Allergy and Immunology, Monash Health, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
Monash University · AUMonash Health · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealthcare workers (HCWs) are at risk from aerosol transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. The aims of this study were to (1) quantify the protection provided by masks (surgical, fit-testFAILED N95, fit-testPASSED N95) and personal protective equipment (PPE), and (2) determine if a portable high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter can enhance the benefit of PPE.

methodsVirus aerosol exposure experiments using bacteriophage PhiX174 were performed. An HCW wearing PPE (mask, gloves, gown, face shield) was exposed to nebulized viruses (108 copies/mL) for 40 minutes in a sealed clinical room. Virus exposure was quantified via skin swabs applied to the face, nostrils, forearms, neck, and forehead. Experiments were repeated with a HEPA filter (13.4 volume-filtrations/hour).

resultsSignificant virus counts were detected on the face while the participants were wearing either surgical or N95 masks. Only the fit-testPASSED N95 resulted in lower virus counts compared to control (P = .007). Nasal swabs demonstrated high virus exposure, which was not mitigated by the surgical/fit-testFAILED N95 masks, although there was a trend for the fit-testPASSED N95 mask to reduce virus counts (P = .058). HEPA filtration reduced virus to near-zero levels when combined with fit-testPASSED N95 mask, gloves, gown, and face shield.

conclusionsN95 masks that have passed a quantitative fit-test combined with HEPA filtration protects against high virus aerosol loads at close range and for prolonged periods of time.

Indexed as

COVID-19N95 RespiratorsFiltrationHumansMasksRespiratory Aerosols and DropletsViral Loadaerosolsair filtrationpersonal protective equipmentventilation

Identifiers

PMID35535021
PMCPMC9400421
OpenAlexW4280542324

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.