ArticleAntimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE2024
Magnetic resonance imaging respirators: a randomized crossover trial to assess respiratory protection, usability, and comfort.
Article in Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE, 2024. 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.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Many available facepiece filtering respirators contain ferromagnetic components, which may cause significant problems in the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) environment. We conducted a randomized crossover trial to assess the effectiveness, usability, and comfort of 3 types of respirators, judged to be "conditionally MRI safe" with an aluminum nosepiece (Halyard 46727 duckbill-type respirators and Care Essentials MSK-002 bifold cup-type respirators) or "MRI safe" completely metal free (Eagle AG2200 semirigid cup-type respirators). Design and setting: We recruited 120 participants to undergo a quantitative fit test (QNFT) on each of the 3 respirators in a randomized order. Participants then completed a usability and comfort assessment of each respirator. Results: There were significant differences in the QNFT pass rates (51% for Halyard 46727, 73% for Care Essentials MSK-002, and 86% for Eagle AG2200, Conclusions: Our study supports the utility of the Eagle AG2200 and Care Essentials MSK-002 respirators for healthcare professionals working in an MRI environment, based on their high QNFT pass rates and reasonably good overall usability and comfort scores. Eagle AG2200 is unique because of its metal-free construction. However, its comparatively lower usability and comfort ratings raise questions about practicality, which may be improved by greater user training.
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.