Trial reportBMC infectious diseases2024
Efficacy and feasibility of a novel semi-facial respirator with chitosan nanoparticles on the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in healthcare professionals: randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in BMC infectious diseases, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04490200 (Effectiveness of a Novel Respirator With Chitosan Nanoparticles to Reduce the Incidence of SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Healthcare Professionals), which is not on this 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.
Effectiveness of a Novel Respirator With Chitosan Nanoparticles to Reduce the Incidence of SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Healthcare Professionals: Randomized Controlled Trial (VESTA Trial)
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
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEvidence suggests that semi-facial respirators provide protection against contamination in high-risk environments, although the COVID-19 pandemic called for greater protection and viral inactivation capacity. Thus, the aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy of a novel semi-facial respirator containing chitosan nanoparticles, compared with a conventional N95 respirator on the incidence of laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 in healthcare professionals. The secondary outcomes were influenza infection, usability and comfort.
methodsRandomized controlled trial within a large public hospital (reference for COVID-19 patients) carried out between March 2021 and June 2023. We included 230 healthcare professionals exposed to SARS-Cov-2 and influenza, working in emergency departments, hospital wards, and intensive care units. Participants were assessed at baseline, after 10 days, and 21 days of follow-up. Researchers, participants, and outcome assessors were blinded to the allocated groups. Outcomes were analyzed by bivariate and multivariate comparisons using logistic regression. Crude (cOR) and adjusted odds ratios (aOR) were estimated, followed by 95% confidence intervals (CIs 95%). We adopted intention-to-treat (ITT) and complete-case (CC) analyses.
resultsBaseline characteristics were considered homogeneous between groups, and usability and comfort were reported as excellent in both groups. Non-significant differences were found for all outcomes, both in the ITT and CC analyses. The incidence of COVID-19 and influenza were, respectively, cOR: 0.96 [CI95%: 0.21-4.42] and cOR: 1.25 [CI95%: 0.34-4.62]; and aOR: 1.08 [CI95%: 0.21-5.47] and aOR: 1.11 [CI95%: 0.17-7.01].
conclusionsWe found that the incidence of SARS-Cov-2 and influenza infections were similar between the new respirator compared to the conventional respirator. Furthermore, we observed that usability and comfort were similar and considered excellent for both respirators.
trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov (NCT04490200, 29/07/2020).
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.