ReviewInternational journal of nursing sciences2023
Effectiveness of fit testing versus fit checking for healthcare workers respiratory protective equipment: A systematic review.
Review in International journal of nursing sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of the protective efficacy of a user seal check for N95 respirators through quantitative fit testing in an ambulance crew.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Evaluating the fit and performance of flat-fold, cup, and three-panel respirators among Thai healthcare personnel.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Respiratory protection is critical in healthcare to minimise the risk of airborne infections for healthcare workers (HCWs). It emphasizes the use of proper fitting of particulate filter respirators and equivalent respiratory protective equipment (RPE) to ensure a good facial seal. The systematic review aimed to compare the effectiveness of fit testing and fit checking for HCWs' respiratory protective equipment. Methods: A systematic review of the literature exploring RPE for HCWs to determine the effectiveness of fit-testing versus fit-checking from January 2003 to April 2022 was identified using CINAHL Complete via EBSCO Host, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, PubMed, and MEDLINE via Ovid electronic databases, and grey literature. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42020213968). Results: Of the 561 articles identified in the search, 25 articles (22 quantitative studies and three guidelines) were included in this review. Overall, these studies suggest fit-testing as a method that is more effective, widely adopted, and reliable in assessing the effectiveness of RPE; however, a respiratory program should include both fit-testing and fit-checking to maximise effectiveness of the RPE. The COVID-19 epidemic highlighted a lack of knowledge among HCWs regarding fit-checking and fit-testing, and relevant education increased the effectiveness of respiratory equipment protection. Conclusion: It is imperative that both fit-testing and fit-checking is implemented in order to ensure HCW safety. It is recommended to integrate education, fit-testing and fit-checking into a comprehensive respiratory protective program run by trained fit-testers. There is also a need for practical testing methods that incorporate the clinical environment.
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.