Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37230519›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2023

Retrospective evaluation of factors affecting successful fit testing of respiratory protective equipment during the early phase of COVID-19.

Silvia Caggiari, Dan Bader, Zoe Packman, Jane Robinson, Sumeshni Tranka, Dankmar Böhning, Peter Worsley

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2023. 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 30% of its field
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 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Silvia CaggiariSchool of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Dan BaderSchool of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Zoe PackmanNHS England and NHS Improvement, London, UK.
Jane RobinsonNHS England and NHS Improvement, London, UK.
Sumeshni TrankaNHS England and NHS Improvement, London, UK.
Dankmar BöhningSouthampton Statistical Sciences Research Institute, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Peter WorsleySchool of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK p.r.worsley@soton.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-0145-5042
University of Southampton · GBNHS England

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesRespiratory protective equipment is critical to protect healthcare workers from COVID-19 infection, which includes filtering facepiece respirators (FFP3). There are reports of fitting issues within healthcare workers, although the factors affecting fitting outcomes are largely unknown. This study aimed to evaluate factors affecting respirator fitting outcomes.

designThis is a retrospective evaluation study. We conducted a secondary analysis of a national database of fit testing outcomes in England between July and August 2020. SETTINGS: The study involves National Health Service (NHS) hospitals in England.

participantsA total of 9592 observations regarding fit test outcomes from 5604 healthcare workers were included in the analysis.

interventionFit testing of FFP3 on a cohort of healthcare workers in England, working in the NHS. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome measure was the fit testing result, that is, pass or fail with a specific respirator. Key demographics, including age, gender, ethnicity and face measurements of 5604 healthcare workers, were used to compare fitting outcomes.

resultsA total of 9592 observations from 5604 healthcare workers were included in the analysis. A mixed-effects logistic regression model was used to determine the factors which affected fit testing outcome. Results showed that males experienced a significantly (p<0.05) higher fit test success than females (OR 1.51; 95% CI 1.27 to 1.81). Those with non-white ethnicities demonstrated significantly lower odds of successful respirator fitting; black (OR 0.65; 95% CI 0.51 to 0.83), Asian (OR 0.62; 95% CI 0.52 to 0.74) and mixed (OR 0.60; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.79.

conclusionDuring the early phase of COVID-19, females and non-white ethnicities were less likely to have a successful respirator fitting. Further research is needed to design new respirators which provide equal opportunity for comfortable, effective fitting of these devices.

Indexed as

COVID-19Occupational ExposureRespiratory Protective DevicesEquipment DesignFemaleHumansMaleRetrospective StudiesState Medicineclinical auditCOVID-19occupational & industrial medicine

Identifiers

PMID37230519
PMCPMC10230346
OpenAlexW4378211194

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.