ArticlePloS one2024
A retrospective characterization of pediatric facemasks marketed in the United States and implications for future designs.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDevice manufacturers who seek to market their pediatric facemasks in the United States (U.S.), as part of anthropometric data requirement, need to demonstrate their mask designs are expected to fit the intended user population. However, currently there are no well accepted test methodologies for pediatric facemasks. In addition, unlike N95 respirators, the expected maximum flow rate, and the pressure drop at that expected maximum flow rate for pediatric facemasks have not been established.
methodThe objective of this article is three-fold; use a literature survey to determine the worst-case flow rate, and an acceptable breathing resistance; and come up with a bench-test based protocol for assessing fit of pediatric facemasks. RESULTS & DISCUSSION: The worst-case breathing flow rate for mask testing in the pediatric population is 45-60 Liters/minute (LPM), and the acceptable pressure drop at the worst-case flow rate is 2.0 mmH2O. A retrospective assessment of all the four brands of legally marketed facemasks in the U.S. that could be purchased, revealed that majority of the brands have high filtration efficiency (>95%) at low flow rate 5 LPM which reduces to ~ 80% at 45 LPM. At 5 LPM, the pressure drop ranges from 0.3-0.6 mmH2O, remaining below the 2.0 mmH2O. However, at higher flow rates, (representing strenuous activities, or older children (> 12 years)), most masks exhibited a pressure drop within the range of 2.9 to 6.0 mmH2O. Furthermore, opening the pleats of the facemasks completely results in a notable reduction in pressure drop (a 6.6-fold decrease, p = 0.03). To assess fit of these same brands of facemasks, we then updated our previous validated adult manikin fit-test method and used it in manikins in the age group of 2 to 14 years. Either poor nose-clip adherence to the manikin, low filtration efficiency of the pediatric facemasks, or off-label use (i.e. when donned on manikins representing 2 years to 14 years) contributed to low fit.
conclusionsA new bench-top tool to evaluate quantitative fit of pediatric facemasks was developed. In addition, based on the research reported here, we provide practical implications for the members of the community: users, academia and medical device manufacturers.
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.