Trial reportInfection prevention in practice2026
Evaluation of new and conventional N95 fit-testing protocols on equivalence and reproducibility: a study protocol.
Trial report in Infection prevention in practice, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
An N95 respirator is designed to fit tightly and filter airborne particles. Healthcare workers (HCWs), especially those handling aerosols, must complete fit testing to choose the right mask and receive proper training. Traditionally, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)'s eight-step protocol was used for N95 fit testing, but in 2019, a shorter four-step version was introduced, cutting testing time. Although the OSHA claims both protocols are equivalent, there is limited empirical support and no research on the reproducibility of the conventional method.The proposed cross-sectional observational study will evaluate the equivalence (i.e. agreement) and reproducibility of the fit-testing results of three different designed respirators tested among Chinese HCWs using both new and conventional fit-testing protocols.The kappa agreement between the new and conventional protocols can serve as an important point of reference for fit-testing policies. If there is a high level of equivalence, both fit-testing protocols could be simultaneously implemented as they would be expected to produce similar results. In contrast, if the conventional protocol is more stringent than the new protocol, conservatively, it would be necessary to exercise caution and suspend implementation of the new protocol. Additionally, the reproducibility of respirator fit testing must be determined. Examining the reproducibility could eliminate uncertainty regarding the ability of a respirator to maintain a proper fit in a real clinical setting. Trial registration: This study was registered to ISRCTN registry: ISRCTN15612510. The study was retrospectively registered on 28
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.