ArticlePloS one2023
The effect of N95 designs on respirator fit and its associations with gender and facial dimensions.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- N95 filtering facepiece respirator fit assessment outcomes by gender, age, race, and facial hair in a community population sample.Annals of work exposures and health · 2026Article
- Quantitative headform fit evaluation and predictive modeling to assist with selecting N95 filtering facepiece respirators to mitigate respiratory hazards.Journal of occupational and environmental hygiene · 2025Article
- Evaluating the fit and performance of flat-fold, cup, and three-panel respirators among Thai healthcare personnel.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study examined the association of various brands of NIOSH-certified N95 filtering face-piece respirators (FFR) fit with facial dimensions and gender. One hundred and thirty-five participants (77 females and 58 males) were recruited from the previous facial anthropometry study among Malaysians in 2020. Quantitative respirator fit testing of six FFR were performed using the TSI Portacount Pro+ 8038 which comprised of four exercises (bending over, talking, up-down head movement, and side to side head movement). An overall fit factor (FF) of ≥ 100 was considered a pass for each FFR. Analysis was done using T-test, Pearson's correlations, and generalised linear regression. The passing rates for the six FFR were 36.3% (Cup B), 50.4% (Trifold A), 54.1% (Duckbill A), 57.0% (Cup A), 74.1% (Trifold B), and 83.7% (Duckbill B). Both Duckbill B and Trifold B had the highest passing rates for both genders. However, certain FFR models (Cup B, Trifold A, Trifold B, and Duckbill A) fit better for participants with large facial size who were mostly males, while others (Cup A and Duckbill B) specifically fit better for those with small facial size, who were mostly females. This study showed significant positive effect of nose protrusion, nasal root and subnasale-sellion and the negative effect of menton-sellion, bigonial breadth and nose breadth on fit factors of various FFR. The results of this study emphasized the importance of choosing and designing FFR based on local anthropometry data, with careful consideration on the dimensions that affect the respirator fit. Since N95 are commonly used in the healthcare settings to prevent airborne transmission, the practice of respirator fit testing and selecting N95 with high passing rates for healthcare workers need to be emphasized.
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.