ArticleThe Medical journal of Australia2022
N95 respirators: quantitative fit test pass rates and usability and comfort assessment by health care workers.
Article in The Medical journal of Australia, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Quantitative fit-test concordance of a pair of similar-fit 3M Aura respirator models, 3M 9320A+ and 3M 1870+: A randomized crossover study.Infection control and hospital epidemiology · 2023Trial
- A comparison of fit, heat stress, oxygen saturation and comfort between a novel reusable mask and disposable N95 respirator.PloS one · 2025Article
- Evaluating the fit and performance of flat-fold, cup, and three-panel respirators among Thai healthcare personnel.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Magnetic resonance imaging respirators: a randomized crossover trial to assess respiratory protection, usability, and comfort.Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2024Article
- Prospective comprehensive evaluation of an elastic-band beard cover for filtering facepiece respirators in healthcare workers.Infection control and hospital epidemiology · 2024Article
- Infra-Red Imaging to Detect Respirator Leak in Healthcare Workers During Fit-Testing Clinic.IEEE open journal of engineering in medicine and biology · 2024Article
- Innovations with Validation: An Ingenious Way Forward?Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2023Article
- Face masks for respiratory viral illness prevention in healthcare settings: a concise systemic review and meta-analysis.Iranian journal of microbiology · 2023Review
- Striving to be the fittest: quantitative P2/N95 respirator fit test results among hospital staff during the COVID-19 pandemic.Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2023Article
- The effect of N95 designs on respirator fit and its associations with gender and facial dimensions.PloS one · 2023Article
- Protocol of a prospective comprehensive evaluation of an elastic band beard cover for filtering facepiece respirators in healthcare.PloS one · 2023Article
- N95 respirators for health care workers: the importance of fit, comfort, and usability.The Medical journal of Australia · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the performance of four N95 respirator types with respect to quantitative fit test pass rate and health care worker-rated usability and comfort. DESIGN, SETTING,
participantsHealth care workers who participated in the respiratory protection program at the Royal Melbourne Hospital, 1 October 2020 - 31 May 2021. Participants underwent quantitative N95 respirator fit testing (at least three of four types: semi-rigid cup, flat-fold cup, duckbill, and three-panel flat-fold types), and were invited to complete an online usability and comfort assessment for respirators for which their fit test results were passes.
main outcome measuresFit test pass rate, and user-rated overall comfort and assessment ratings (five-point Likert scales), by N95 respirator type.
resultsA total of 2161 health care workers underwent quantitative fit testing (women, 1586 [73.4%]; nurses, 1271 [58.8%]). The overall fit test pass rates were 65.0% for the semi-rigid cup respirators (1029/1583 tests), 32.4% for the flat-fold respirator (660/2035 tests), 59.2% for the duckbill respirators (2005/3387 tests), and 96.4% for the three-panel flat-fold respirator (1876/1946 tests). 378 health care workers completed the comfort and usability survey. Overall comfort and assessment ratings each differed by respirator group (P < 0.001); the median overall comfort (4; IQR, 3-4) and overall assessment values (4; IQR, 3-5) were highest for the three-panel flat-fold respirator and lowest for the semi-rigid cup respirators (comfort: 2 [IQR, 1-3]; assessment: 2 [IQR, 2-3]).
conclusionsThe three-panel flat-fold N95 respirator outperformed the three alternative types with regard to fit test pass rate and user-rated comfort and usability. To maximise respiratory protection for health care workers, these factors should be considered when making respirator procurement decisions.
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.