ArticleBMJ case reports2023
Severe allergic systemic reaction to personal protective equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Article in BMJ case reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Our case describes a hospital worker who suffered a severe reaction to personal protective equipment (PPE) during the COVID-19 pandemic. After researching the excipient list of her PPE and completing a literature review, we postulated that isocyanates used in the production of the polyurethane band of the N95 mask was the cause for her reaction. In the absence of standardised testing, we tested this hypothesis by replicating her reaction to PPE by using a commercially available isocyanate patch, identifying diphenylmethane-4, 4-diisocyanate as the culprit agent.We recommended caution in the use of polyurethane containing N95 masks- for people reporting allergic reaction- and testing for sensitivity for polyurethane. The patient was able to tolerate non-polyurethane containing standard surgical masks, providing an option for PPE in some clinical circumstances. Since avoiding N95 masks, she has not had any further reactions.
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.