Standard PPE: sealed gown and glove combination (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.78), aīetter fitting gown around the neck, wrists and hands (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.55),Ī better cover of the gown‐wrist interface (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.78, The following modifications to PPE design may lead to less contamination compared to Of more breathable material may lead to a similar number of spots on the trunk (MDġ.60, 95% CI −0.15 to 3.35) compared to more water‐repellent material but may have Gowns may protect better against contamination thanĪprons (small patches: mean difference (MD) −10.28, 95% CI −14.77 to −5.79). Had less contamination than those with a coverall, and coveralls were more difficult In one RCT (59 participants), people with a long gown ![]() Risk of contamination better than a N95 mask and gown (risk ratio (RR) 0.27, 95%Ĭonfidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 0.43) but was more difficult to don (non‐compliance: The use of a powered, air‐purifying respirator with coverall may protect against the Is based on one or two studies, the indirectness of the evidence in simulation studies ![]() Intervention and 67% for the control groups.Įvidence for all outcomes is of very low certainty unless otherwise stated because it In simulation studies, median contamination rates were 25% for the ![]() Eight studiesĬompared donning and doffing processes and three studies evaluated types of training.Įighteen studies used simulated exposure with fluorescent markers or harmless Trials (RCT), one was a quasi‐RCT and nine had a non‐randomised design.Įight studies compared types of PPE. Included 24 studies with 2278 participants, of which 14 were randomised controlled Earlier versions of this review were published in 20.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |