ArticleFrontiers in medicine2022
The Evaluation of Physiological Index Changes and Safety Work of Female Medical Staff With Different Medical Protection Standards in the Ward of COVID-19.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Effective personal protective equipment (PPE) contribute to the prevention of COVID-19 infection. However, it is necessary to evaluate the potential risk of different medical protections in the isolation ward of COVID-19. Objectives: We aimed to explore the dynamics in physiological indexes of medical staff under primary and secondary PPE in the isolation ward of COVID-19 and provide the scientific basis for determining the safe work strategy. Materials and Methods: In this study, 30 female nurses were selected to simulate medical work under the primary or secondary PPE, respectively. The oral temperature, axillary temperature, heart rate, respiratory rate, blood oxygen saturation, and blood pressure were measured and recorded every 20 min. The subjective adverse symptoms were recorded every 30 min. The blood glucose and weight of the individuals were measured and recorded before and after the trial. Results: The results indicated that the median trial persistence time in the participants with moderate-intensity work wearing the secondary PPE (70.0 min) was much lower than that with moderate-intensity work wearing the primary PPE (180 min) and with light-intensity work wearing the primary PPE (110 min; Conclusion: The combination of an exacerbated workload and secondary PPE worn by COVID-19 healthcare workers increases the change in physiological indicators, and in some cases the adverse symptoms, which can affect and even suspend their medical work. For any medical institution, there is room for improvement in terms of bioethics of a "Job Well Done" to reduce the risks of medical activities under secondary PPE.
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.