ArticleLaryngoscope investigative otolaryngology2022
Innovative dual-function protective scope mask and filtration system for aerosol generating ENT scope procedures.
Article in Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Innovative dual-function protective scope mask and filtration system for aerosol generating ENT scope procedures.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs), such as nasoendoscopy, are considered high-risk during the COVID-19 pandemic due to risk of virus aerosol transmission. We aim to evaluate the efficacy of an innovative system in reduction of aerosol contamination. Methods: Pilot study involving 15 healthy volunteers performing aerosol-generating activities with the prototype, compared with and without a standard surgical mask. Results: We found an increased frequency of smaller-sized particle emissions for all four expiratory activities. The particle emission rate with the prototype mask was significantly slower over time for the smallest sized particle (0.3 μm) during breathing, speaking and singing compared with similar activities without the mask (p < .05). We found similar trends for coughing for larger particles but that did not reach statistical significance. Conclusion: The innovation offers good protection against aerosol transmission through the physical barrier of the mask, the negative pressure environment within the mask, and the unit's dual filtration function. Level of evidence: Level 2b.
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.