ArticleJournal of education and health promotion2022
Adverse effects associated with the use of N95 mask among health-care workers at the COVID-19 care units: A cross-sectional study in Sulaimani city, Iraq.
Article in Journal of education and health promotion, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- ChitoHeal gel use on the nasal site for prevention of N95 masks caused pressure injuries: A randomised clinical trial.International wound journal · 2023Trial
- Risks and benefits of face masks in children.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHealth-care workers have to use the N95 mask as a part of the protection kit during the COVID-19 pandemic. The adverse effects of such practice are not fully elucidated. The study aims to evaluate negative impacts of N95 face masks on health-care personnel at COVID-19 care units. MATERIALS AND
methodsOne hundred and twenty-two health-care workers (aged 20-58 years) from various health-care settings in Sulaimani, Iraq, from January to August 2020, were enrolled in this prospective, cross-sectional study. The physiological variables (blood pressure, heart rate, and oxygen saturation) were recorded before putting on the N95 mask and postremoval of the mask. The incidence of adverse effects such as headache, difficulty breathing, redness, irritation, and dizziness were also reported as a number and percent at the end of the work shift.
resultsThere was a statistically significant difference in the physiological parameters after removal of the mask compared with baseline. Only diastolic pressure was significantly lower in those working >6 h when compared to those working 1-6 h. The changes in physiological markers were poorly and nonsignificantly associated with the duration of wearing the mask. Moreover, 67.2%-70.5% of the participants complain of headaches and breathing difficulties, while 45.9%-51.6% reported signs of itching, redness, and irritation. However, health-care workers who put on the face mask >6 h showed signs of headache, breathing difficulties, and itching at the exposed areas higher than those working for 1-6 h.
conclusionN95 mask negatively impacts the physiological variables of health-care providers. The adverse effects may lead to excessive exhaustion after long shifts in the intensive care unit during treatment of COVID-19 patients.
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.