ArticlePloS one2025
Evaluating N95 respirator designs: A mixed-methods pilot and feasibility study.
Article in PloS one, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has had a global impact, underscoring the importance of personal protective equipment (PPE). Use of N95s reduces the risk of airborne infection; however, in the absence of equitable designs, health care workers (HCWs) who do not fit the average White male head and face are at an increased risk of airborne infectious diseases.
objectivesPrimary: Feasibility of a mixed-method study, with a sample size of 100, 50% of participants self-identifying as non-White and having at least one characteristic of interest. Secondary: (1) Generate quantitative evidence on N95 fit using a PortaCount fit test, (2) describe participant-reported feelings on fit and breathability, and (3) evaluate the impacts of the pandemic on a HCW's physical and mental well-being.
methodsThis was a mixed-method prospective pilot and feasibility study. Quantitative fit was assessed using a TSI PortaCount test and measurements of bizygomatic breadth and Menton-Sellion length. A survey was administered to collect sociodemographic information, HCWs' assessment of N95 fit, comfort, and the impact of PPE-related challenges on well-being.
resultsThis study was limited by a small sample size, as COVID-19 pandemic restrictions prevented adequate recruitment to detect differences between groups. We describe key findings that should inform analyses of the impact of gender and ethnicity on N95 respirator fit. Following a study amendment to increase eligible sites, 37 of the 41 (90.2%) approached HCWs consented to participate. Compared to other HCWs, non-White females had the lowest mean fit factor. Differences in Menton-Sellion length and bizygomatic breadth were observed between males, females, and White and non-White HCWs. Most HCWs reported physical discomfort and negative impacts on their psychological well-being.
conclusionsWe identified gender and ethnicity as key factors in the fit of N95s. Differences in gender, ethnicity, and anthropometric measures must be considered in respirator designs.
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.