ArticlePloS one2022
Development of protective equipment for endoscopic treatment and surgery in otorhinolaryngology.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe coronavirus disease pandemic has raised concerns regarding the transmission of infections to healthcare workers. We developed a new protective device to reduce the risk of aerosol diffusion and droplet infection among healthcare workers. Here, we report the results of a theoretical evaluation of the efficacy of this device.
methodsWe used suction-capable masks with and without rubber slits, sleeves for the insertion section of endoscopes and treatment tools, and a cover for the control section of the endoscope. To simulate droplet spread from patients, we created a droplet simulation model and an aerosol simulation model. The results with and without the devices attached and with and without the suction were compared.
resultsThe droplet simulation model showed a 95% reduction in droplets with masks with rubber slits; furthermore, a reduction of 100% was observed when the insertion sleeve was used. Evaluation of aerosol simulation when suction was applied revealed an aerosol reduction of 98% and >99% with the use of the mask without rubber slits and with the combined use of the mask and insertion sleeve, respectively. The elimination of droplet emission upon instrument removal confirmed that the instrument sleeve prevented the diffusion of droplets. The elimination of droplets upon repeated pressing of the suction button confirmed that the cover prevented the diffusion of droplets.
conclusionWe developed a device for infection control, in collaboration with a gastrointestinal endoscopist and Olympus Medical Systems Corporation, that was effective in reducing droplet and aerosol diffusion in this initial theoretical assessment.
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.