Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35971399›Full record

ArticleCureus2022

Personal Protective Equipment Efficiency in Healthcare Emergencies: A Single-Center Experience.

Harmeen Goraya, Nikhil Meena, Rajani Jagana

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Harmeen GorayaPulmonary and Critical Care, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, USA.
Nikhil MeenaPulmonary and Critical Care, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, USA.
Rajani JaganaPulmonary and Critical Care, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has dramatically shifted the healthcare landscape since 2020. Measures against it includes universal masking in the healthcare areas and the community, viral testing before aerosolizing procedures, and ambulatory elective surgical procedures. Some hospitals have had mandated viral testing policies even before admission to the hospital. Healthcare workers (HCWs) have been cautiously modifying all pertinent practices to avoid the transmission of the virus. Personal protective equipment (PPE), including gowns, gloves, eye protection, and properly fitted N95 respirator or powered air-purifying respirators (PAPR) while treating the suspected and confirmed COVID-19 patients were made mandatory. Similarly, we changed our aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) protocols based on available limited data. We amended our approach to in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation (basic life support (BLS)/advanced cardiovascular life support (ACLS)), given the risk of aerosol generation and transmission during the process. This article shares our experience and outcomes of PPE use in healthcare emergencies at our tertiary care academic center.

Indexed as

aclsaerosolcoronavirus disease 2019covid-19cprhealth care emergencieshealth care worker (hcw)personal protective equipment (ppe)quality improvement

Identifiers

PMID35971399
PMCPMC9371593

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.