14
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Use of personal protective equipment to care for patients with COVID-19: scoping review Translated title: Uso de equipo de protección personal para el cuidado de pacientes con COVID-19: revisión del alcance Translated title: Utilização de equipamentos de proteção individual para atendimento de pacientes com covid-19: revisão de escopo

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          ABSTRACT Objective To summarize the knowledge about recommendations for the use of personal protective equipment necessary for the provision of care by health professionals to patients suspected or infected by the new coronavirus. Method Scoping review with search for primary studies, reviews and preprints articles in English, Portuguese and Spanish, in the last 20 years on the bases WOS/ISI, SCOPUS, MEDLINE/PuBMed, CINAHL, LILACS and SciELO. Unpublished studies in journals were surveyed on bioRxiv and SciELO preprints. Results 23 studies were eligible. Experiences with coronavirus prior to SARS-CoV-2 revealed that the equipment was an essential barrier in preventing transmission and followed the recommendations for standard precautions, contact, droplet and aerosol. In 13 (57%) studies, this equipment complied international recommendations and in 10 (45%) local recommendations. Conclusion The personal protective equipment used does not follow global standardization according to type, quality and adequate provision, exposing these professionals to the risk of contamination.

          Translated abstract

          RESUMEN Objetivo Resumir el conocimiento sobre las recomendaciones para el uso de equipos de protección personal necesarios para la prestación de cuidados por parte de los profesionales de salud a pacientes sospechosos o infectados por el nuevo coronavírus. Método Revisión de alcance con búsqueda de estudios primarios, revisiones y preprints en inglés, portugués y español, en los últimos 20 años en bases WOS/ISI, SCOPUS, MEDLINE/PuBMed, CINAHL, LILACS y SciELO. Estudios no publicados en revistas se encontraron en Preprints bioRxiv y SciELO preprints. Resultados 23 estudios fueron elegibles. Experiencias con coronavirus antes del SARS-CoV-2 revelaron que el equipo era una barrera esencial para prevenir la transmisión y siguieron las recomendaciones de precauciones estándar, contacto, gotas y aerosoles. En 13 (57%) estudios este equipo cumplió con las recomendaciones internacionales y en 10 (45%) recomendaciones locales. Conclusión El equipo de protección personal utilizado no sigue la estandarización global según tipo, calidad y provisión adecuada, exponiendo a estos profesionales al riesgo de contaminación.

          Translated abstract

          RESUMO Objetivo Sumarizar o conhecimento sobre recomendações do uso de equipamentos de proteção individual necessários para a prestação do cuidado por profissionais de saúde à pacientes suspeitos ou infectados pelo novo coronavírus. Método Scoping review com busca de estudos primários, revisões e artigos preprints em inglês, português e espanhol, nos últimos 20 anos nas bases WOS/ISI, SCOPUS, MEDLINE/PuBMed, CINAHL, LILACS e SciELO. Estudos não publicados em periódicos foram levantados nos Preprints bioRxiv e SciELO preprints. Resultados 23 estudos foram elegíveis. Experiências com coronavírus anteriores ao SARS-CoV-2 revelaram que os equipamentos foram barreiras imprescindíveis na prevenção da transmissão e seguiram recomendações de precauções padrão, contato, gotícula e aerossol. Em 13 (57%) estudos esses equipamentos atenderam às recomendações internacionais e em 10 (45%) recomendações locais. Conclusão Os equipamentos de proteção individual utilizados não seguem padronização global segundo tipo, qualidade e provisão adequada, expondo esses profissionais ao risco de contaminação.

          Related collections

          Most cited references46

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation

          Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers, publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach

              Background Scoping reviews are a relatively new approach to evidence synthesis and currently there exists little guidance regarding the decision to choose between a systematic review or scoping review approach when synthesising evidence. The purpose of this article is to clearly describe the differences in indications between scoping reviews and systematic reviews and to provide guidance for when a scoping review is (and is not) appropriate. Results Researchers may conduct scoping reviews instead of systematic reviews where the purpose of the review is to identify knowledge gaps, scope a body of literature, clarify concepts or to investigate research conduct. While useful in their own right, scoping reviews may also be helpful precursors to systematic reviews and can be used to confirm the relevance of inclusion criteria and potential questions. Conclusions Scoping reviews are a useful tool in the ever increasing arsenal of evidence synthesis approaches. Although conducted for different purposes compared to systematic reviews, scoping reviews still require rigorous and transparent methods in their conduct to ensure that the results are trustworthy. Our hope is that with clear guidance available regarding whether to conduct a scoping review or a systematic review, there will be less scoping reviews being performed for inappropriate indications better served by a systematic review, and vice-versa.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                rgenf
                Revista Gaúcha de Enfermagem
                Rev. Gaúcha Enferm.
                Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul. Escola de Enfermagem (Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil )
                0102-6933
                1983-1447
                2021
                : 42
                : spe
                : e20200150
                Affiliations
                [3] Cuiabá Mato Grosso orgnameUniversidade Federal de Mato Grosso orgdiv1Faculdade de Enfermagem Brazil
                [2] Salvador Bahia orgnameUniversidade Federal da Bahia orgdiv1Escola de Enfermagem Brazil
                [1] Ribeirão Preto orgnameUniversidade de São Paulo orgdiv1Escola de Enfermagem de Ribeirão Preto orgdiv2Programa de Pós-graduação em Enfermagem Fundamental Brazil
                Article
                S1983-14472021000200900 S1983-1447(21)04200000900
                10.1590/1983-1447.2021.20200150
                22b76fc5-6b33-4193-8ccb-bb5f944fd7da

                This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

                History
                : 29 May 2020
                : 09 September 2020
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 0, Equations: 0, References: 46, Pages: 0
                Product

                SciELO Brazil

                Categories
                Scoping Review

                Equipo de protección personal,Infecciones por coronavirus,Equipamento de proteção individual,Pessoal de saúde,Coronavirus infections,Personal protective equipment,Health personnel,Personal de salud,Infecções por coronavírus

                Comments

                Comment on this article