ArticlePloS one2024
Physiological effects of filtering facepiece respirators based on age and exercise intensity.
Article in PloS one, 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
During the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, Filtering Facepiece Respirators (FFRs) were highly effective, but concerns arose regarding their physiological effects across different age groups. This study evaluated these effects based on age and exercise intensity in 28 participants (children, young adults, and older individuals). Physiological parameters such as respiratory frequency (Rf), minute ventilation (VE), carbon dioxide production (VCO2), oxygen consumption (VO2), heart rate (HR), metabolic equivalents (METs), percutaneous oxygen saturation (SpO2) and the concentration of O2 and CO2 in the FFRs were measured during treadmill tests with and without FFRs (cup-shaped, flat-folded, and with an exhalation valve). There was no significant difference in physiological effects between the control and FFR types, although Rf, VE, VCO2, VO2, METs, and HR increased with increasing exercise intensity. Depending on the exercise intensity, the O2 level in the FFR dead space decreased, and the CO2 level increased but this was independent of the dead space volume or FFR type. The study concluded that FFRs did not substantially impact daily life or short-term exercise, supporting their safe and effective use as a public health measure during pandemics and informing inclusive guidelines and policies.
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.