Cargando…

Comparative efficacy of respiratory personal protective equipment against viral respiratory infectious diseases in healthcare workers: a network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: With the epidemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the healthcare workers (HCWs) require proper respiratory personal protective equipment (rPPE) against viral respiratory infectious diseases (VRIDs). It is necessary to evaluate which type of mask and manner of wearing is the best s...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Yin, X., Wang, X., Xu, S., He, C.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The Royal Society for Public Health. Published by Elsevier Ltd. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7755580/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33360295
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2020.11.004
_version_ 1783626377610657792
author Yin, X.
Wang, X.
Xu, S.
He, C.
author_facet Yin, X.
Wang, X.
Xu, S.
He, C.
author_sort Yin, X.
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: With the epidemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the healthcare workers (HCWs) require proper respiratory personal protective equipment (rPPE) against viral respiratory infectious diseases (VRIDs). It is necessary to evaluate which type of mask and manner of wearing is the best suitable rPPE for preventing the VRID. STUDY DESIGN: A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed to comprehensively analyze the protective efficacy of various rPPE. METHODS: This network meta-analysis protocol was registered in an international prospective register of systematic reviews (CRD42020179489). Electronic databases were searched for cluster randomized control trials (RCTs) of comparing the effectiveness of rPPE and wearing manner in preventing HCWs from VRID. The primary outcome was the incidence of laboratory-confirmed viral respiratory infection reported as an odds ratio (OR) with the associated 95% credibility interval (CrI). The secondary outcome was the incidence of clinical respiratory illness (CRI) reported as an OR with the associated 95% CrI. Surface under the cumulative ranking curve analysis (SUCRA) provided a ranking of each rPPE according to the primary outcome and the secondary outcome as data supplement. RESULTS: Six studies encompassing 12,265 HCWs were included. In terms of the incidence of laboratory-confirmed viral respiratory infection, the continuous wearing of N95 respirators (network OR, 0.48; 95% CrI: 0.27 to 0.86; SUCRA score, 85.4) showed more effective than the control group. However, in terms of reducing the incidence of CRI, there was no rPPE showing superior protective effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: There are significant differences in preventive efficacy among current rPPE. Our result suggests that continuous wearing of N95 respirators on the whole shift can serve as the best preventive rPPE for HCWs from the VRID.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7755580
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher The Royal Society for Public Health. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-77555802020-12-23 Comparative efficacy of respiratory personal protective equipment against viral respiratory infectious diseases in healthcare workers: a network meta-analysis Yin, X. Wang, X. Xu, S. He, C. Public Health Review Paper OBJECTIVE: With the epidemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the healthcare workers (HCWs) require proper respiratory personal protective equipment (rPPE) against viral respiratory infectious diseases (VRIDs). It is necessary to evaluate which type of mask and manner of wearing is the best suitable rPPE for preventing the VRID. STUDY DESIGN: A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed to comprehensively analyze the protective efficacy of various rPPE. METHODS: This network meta-analysis protocol was registered in an international prospective register of systematic reviews (CRD42020179489). Electronic databases were searched for cluster randomized control trials (RCTs) of comparing the effectiveness of rPPE and wearing manner in preventing HCWs from VRID. The primary outcome was the incidence of laboratory-confirmed viral respiratory infection reported as an odds ratio (OR) with the associated 95% credibility interval (CrI). The secondary outcome was the incidence of clinical respiratory illness (CRI) reported as an OR with the associated 95% CrI. Surface under the cumulative ranking curve analysis (SUCRA) provided a ranking of each rPPE according to the primary outcome and the secondary outcome as data supplement. RESULTS: Six studies encompassing 12,265 HCWs were included. In terms of the incidence of laboratory-confirmed viral respiratory infection, the continuous wearing of N95 respirators (network OR, 0.48; 95% CrI: 0.27 to 0.86; SUCRA score, 85.4) showed more effective than the control group. However, in terms of reducing the incidence of CRI, there was no rPPE showing superior protective effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: There are significant differences in preventive efficacy among current rPPE. Our result suggests that continuous wearing of N95 respirators on the whole shift can serve as the best preventive rPPE for HCWs from the VRID. The Royal Society for Public Health. Published by Elsevier Ltd. 2021-01 2020-12-23 /pmc/articles/PMC7755580/ /pubmed/33360295 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2020.11.004 Text en © 2020 The Royal Society for Public Health. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.
spellingShingle Review Paper
Yin, X.
Wang, X.
Xu, S.
He, C.
Comparative efficacy of respiratory personal protective equipment against viral respiratory infectious diseases in healthcare workers: a network meta-analysis
title Comparative efficacy of respiratory personal protective equipment against viral respiratory infectious diseases in healthcare workers: a network meta-analysis
title_full Comparative efficacy of respiratory personal protective equipment against viral respiratory infectious diseases in healthcare workers: a network meta-analysis
title_fullStr Comparative efficacy of respiratory personal protective equipment against viral respiratory infectious diseases in healthcare workers: a network meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Comparative efficacy of respiratory personal protective equipment against viral respiratory infectious diseases in healthcare workers: a network meta-analysis
title_short Comparative efficacy of respiratory personal protective equipment against viral respiratory infectious diseases in healthcare workers: a network meta-analysis
title_sort comparative efficacy of respiratory personal protective equipment against viral respiratory infectious diseases in healthcare workers: a network meta-analysis
topic Review Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7755580/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33360295
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2020.11.004
work_keys_str_mv AT yinx comparativeefficacyofrespiratorypersonalprotectiveequipmentagainstviralrespiratoryinfectiousdiseasesinhealthcareworkersanetworkmetaanalysis
AT wangx comparativeefficacyofrespiratorypersonalprotectiveequipmentagainstviralrespiratoryinfectiousdiseasesinhealthcareworkersanetworkmetaanalysis
AT xus comparativeefficacyofrespiratorypersonalprotectiveequipmentagainstviralrespiratoryinfectiousdiseasesinhealthcareworkersanetworkmetaanalysis
AT hec comparativeefficacyofrespiratorypersonalprotectiveequipmentagainstviralrespiratoryinfectiousdiseasesinhealthcareworkersanetworkmetaanalysis