ArticleAmerican journal of infection control2025
Self-contamination risk and failure modes during high-level PPE doffing: A pilot comparison of 2 powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR) hoods.
Article in American journal of infection control, 2025. 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
Abstract
backgroundPersonal protective equipment doffing protocols can reduce risks of pathogen self-contamination. Powered air-purifying respirators may increase these risks. This study compares viral contamination and errors during simulated doffing of single-layer versus double-layer hood powered air-purifying respirators.
methodsEight participants performed 2 simulations (video recorded for failure modes [FMs] and effects analysis): 1 single-layer hood (laid over Tyvek suit) and 1 double-layer hood (top laid over and bottom tucked into suit). Hoods were contaminated with viruses. After doffing, inner gloves, face, hands, and scrubs were sampled.
resultsVirus contaminated at least 1 site in 6/8 single- and 5/8 double-layer simulations. Virus-contaminated inner gloves in single- (6 participants, median 5.42 × 10 DISCUSSION: Double-layer doffing reduced inner glove contamination. The double-layer protocol may reduce glove-face shield contact but allow more opportunities for error. Double-layer doffing errors may less frequently lead to contamination than single layer.
conclusionsContamination and FMs may differ between double- and single-layer doffing. Although inner glove contamination was reduced, double-layer doffing may need redesign to reduce FMs and contamination.
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.