Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35928220›Full record

ArticleMedical devices (Auckland, N.Z.)2022

Biomechanical and Physiological Evaluation of Respiratory Protective Equipment Application.

Silvia Caggiari, Dan L Bader, Finn Foxell, Nicholas Pipe, Seana Couch, Abbie Turner, Peter R Worsley

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Silvia CaggiariClinical Academic Facility, School of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8928-2141
Dan L BaderClinical Academic Facility, School of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK.
Finn FoxellClinical Academic Facility, School of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK.
Nicholas PipeClinical Academic Facility, School of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK.
Seana CouchClinical Academic Facility, School of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK.
Abbie TurnerClinical Academic Facility, School of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK.
Peter R WorsleyClinical Academic Facility, School of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0145-5042

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Respiratory protective equipment is widely used in healthcare settings to protect clinicians whilst treating patients with COVID-19. However, their generic designs do not accommodate the variability in face shape across genders and ethnicities. Accordingly, they are regularly overtightened to compensate for a poor fit. The present study aims at investigating the biomechanical and thermal loads during respirator application and the associated changes in local skin physiology at the skin-device interface. Materials and Methods: Sixteen healthy volunteers were recruited and reflected a range of gender, ethnicities and facial anthropometrics. Four single-use respirators were evaluated representing different geometries, size and material interfaces. Participants were asked to wear each respirator in a random order while a series of measurements were recorded, including interface pressure, temperature and relative humidity. Measures of transepidermal water loss and skin hydration were assessed pre- and post-respirator application, and after 20 minutes of recovery. Statistical analysis assessed differences between respirator designs and associations between demographics, interface conditions and parameters of skin health. Results: Results showed a statistically significant negative correlation (p < 0.05) between the alar width and interface pressures at the nasal bridge, for three of the respirator designs. The nasal bridge site also corresponded to the highest pressures for all respirator designs. Temperature and humidity significantly increased (p < 0.05) during each respirator application. Significant increases in transepidermal water loss values (p < 0.05) were observed after the application of the respirators in females, which were most apparent at the nasal bridge. Conclusion: The results revealed that specific facial features affected the distribution of interface pressures and depending on the respirator design and material, changes in skin barrier function were evident. The development of respirator designs that accommodate a diverse range of face shapes and protect the end users from skin damage are required to support the long-term use of these devices.

Indexed as

goodness of fitinterface pressurephysiological responserespiratory protective equipmentskin health

Identifiers

PMID35928220
PMCPMC9343257

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.