ArticleScientific reports2025
Evaluation of the protective efficacy of a user seal check for N95 respirators through quantitative fit testing in an ambulance crew.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To ensure health and wellbeing of healthcare workers, prevention of infection is essential. Although N95 filtering facepiece respirators (N95 respirators) are potentially effective respiratory protective devices, scientific evaluation for healthcare workers, particularly for ambulance crews has been insufficient. We investigated if N95 respirator user seal checking ensures seal quality through quantitative fit testing among ambulance crews. A user seal check was performed according to the manufacturer's instructions and based on each participant's subjective assessment of fit. A quantitative test was then performed using a dedicated counter. In the results, although the pass rates for both the user seal check and the quantitative test exceeded 50%, the kappa coefficients between the two tests were -0.072 (95%CI: -0.38-0.23), 0.11 (95%CI: -0.11-0.33), and 0.013 (95%CI: -0.31-0.34) for three kinds of N95 respirators respectively suggesting extremely low rates of agreement similar to other reports from health providers. Therefore, we compared the patterns of distributions of the two tests. In the result, probability of agreement of the two tests was determined to be 50%, which was identical to a coin toss. It is unknown what level of protection an N95 respirator will provide when only a user seal check is performed.
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.