Personal protective equipment for preventing highly infectious diseases due to exposure to contaminated body fluids in healthcare staff

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

In epidemics of highly infectious diseases, such as Ebola, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), or coronavirus (COVID-19), healthcare workers (HCW) are at much greater risk of infection than the general population, due to their contact with patients' contaminated body fluids. Personal protective equipment (PPE) can reduce the risk by covering exposed body parts. It is unclear which type of PPE protects best, what is the best way to put PPE on (i.e. donning) or to remove PPE (i.e. doffing), and how to train HCWs to use PPE as instructed.

Related collections

Most cited references 156

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses.

Tom Jefferson, Chris B. Del Mar, Liz Dooley … (2011)

Viral epidemics or pandemics of acute respiratory infections like influenza or severe acute respiratory syndrome pose a global threat. Antiviral drugs and vaccinations may be insufficient to prevent their spread. To review the effectiveness of physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses. We searched The Cochrane Library, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2010, Issue 3), which includes the Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1966 to October 2010), OLDMEDLINE (1950 to 1965), EMBASE (1990 to October 2010), CINAHL (1982 to October 2010), LILACS (2008 to October 2010), Indian MEDLARS (2008 to October 2010) and IMSEAR (2008 to October 2010). In this update, two review authors independently applied the inclusion criteria to all identified and retrieved articles and extracted data. We scanned 3775 titles, excluded 3560 and retrieved full papers of 215 studies, to include 66 papers of 67 studies. We included physical interventions (screening at entry ports, isolation, quarantine, social distancing, barriers, personal protection, hand hygiene) to prevent respiratory virus transmission. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cohorts, case-controls, before-after and time series studies. We used a standardised form to assess trial eligibility. We assessed RCTs by randomisation method, allocation generation, concealment, blinding and follow up. We assessed non-RCTs for potential confounders and classified them as low, medium and high risk of bias. We included 67 studies including randomised controlled trials and observational studies with a mixed risk of bias. A total number of participants is not included as the total would be made up of a heterogenous set of observations (participant people, observations on participants and countries (object of some studies)). The risk of bias for five RCTs and most cluster-RCTs was high. Observational studies were of mixed quality. Only case-control data were sufficiently homogeneous to allow meta-analysis. The highest quality cluster-RCTs suggest respiratory virus spread can be prevented by hygienic measures, such as handwashing, especially around younger children. Benefit from reduced transmission from children to household members is broadly supported also in other study designs where the potential for confounding is greater. Nine case-control studies suggested implementing transmission barriers, isolation and hygienic measures are effective at containing respiratory virus epidemics. Surgical masks or N95 respirators were the most consistent and comprehensive supportive measures. N95 respirators were non-inferior to simple surgical masks but more expensive, uncomfortable and irritating to skin. Adding virucidals or antiseptics to normal handwashing to decrease respiratory disease transmission remains uncertain. Global measures, such as screening at entry ports, led to a non-significant marginal delay in spread. There was limited evidence that social distancing was effective, especially if related to the risk of exposure. Simple and low-cost interventions would be useful for reducing transmission of epidemic respiratory viruses. Routine long-term implementation of some measures assessed might be difficult without the threat of an epidemic.

0 comments Cited 192 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Contamination of Health Care Personnel During Removal of Personal Protective Equipment.

Myreen E Tomas, Sirisha Kundrapu, Priyaleela Thota … (2015)

Contamination of the skin and clothing of health care personnel during removal of personal protective equipment (PPE) contributes to dissemination of pathogens and places personnel at risk for infection.

0 comments Cited 106 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Cluster trials in implementation research: estimation of intracluster correlation coefficients and sample size.

J Grimshaw, K. Campbell, J. Mollison (2001)

The cluster randomized trial with a concurrent economic evaluation is considered the gold standard evaluative design for the conduct of implementation research evaluating different strategies to promote the transfer of research findings into clinical practice. This has implications for the planning of such studies, as information is needed on the effects of clustering on both effectiveness and efficiency outcomes. This paper describes the design considerations specific to implementation research studies, focusing particularly on the estimation of sample size requirements and on the need for reliable information on intracluster correlation coefficients for both effectiveness and efficiency outcomes. Copyright 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

0 comments Cited 89 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

All references

Author and article information

Journal

Journal ID (publisher-id): 146518

Title: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Publisher: Wiley

ISSN (Electronic): 14651858

Publication date (Electronic): April 15 2020

Affiliations

[1 ]Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam; Cochrane Work Review Group; Amsterdam Netherlands 1105AZ

[2 ]University of Eastern Finland; School of Pharmacy; Kuopio Finland

[3 ]University of Bristol; Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School; Bristol UK BS1 2NT

[4 ]University of Tampere; Tampere Finland

[5 ]Galway Ireland

[6 ]Queen's University Belfast; Centre for Experimental Medicine, School of Medicine, Dentistry and Biomedical Sciences; Wellcome-Wolfson Building 97 Lisburn Road Belfast Northern Ireland UK BT9 7LB

[7 ]Finnish Institute of Occupational Health; TYÖTERVEYSLAITOS Finland FI-70032

[8 ]Finnish Medicines Agency; Assessment of Pharmacotherapies; Microkatu 1 Kuopio Finland FI-70210

[9 ]Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory (NPPTL), National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH); 626 Cochrans Mill Road Pittsburgh PA USA 15236

Article

DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011621.pub4

PMC ID: 7158881

PubMed ID: 32293717

SO-VID: 4caeb964-e65a-4063-9afd-4ed66ee0f3f0

History

Data availability:

Comments

Comment on this article

Cited by 114

See all cited by

- Version 1
- Version 1