ArticleBritish dental journal2022
Improving the fit of filtering facepiece respirators.
Article in British dental journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review of fit improvement strategies for respirators: lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic.BMC public health · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims To assess the effectiveness and acceptability of smartphone customised frame technology to improve the fit of disposable filtering facepiece class 3 (FFP3) respirators for dental staff who previously failed fit testing.Method In total, 20 volunteers who previously failed FFP3 fit testing were recruited to use smartphone technology (Bellus3D FaceApp) to have a 3D-printed bespoke face frame produced for them. They underwent qualitative fit testing with and without the frame with two freely available disposable FFP3 respirator designs (mask A: GVS F31000 Segre folded model; mask B: Valmy Spireor). The order of testing was random. Ease of use of the smartphone technology and the comfort of the frame were determined by questionnaire.Results Fit test passes increased from 5% without the frame to 70% and 95%, respectively, for masks A and B with the frame (p <0.01). Very few participants reported using the technology as difficult (n = 1/20) or the frame uncomfortable (n = 3/20) or difficult to wear (n = 0/20).Conclusion Customised frames produced using smartphone technology improved qualitative fit test pass rates for two commonly available FFP3 respirators. Using smartphone technology for frame design, wearing a frame and frame comfort levels were all acceptable to the majority of participants.
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.