Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorToomey, E
dc.contributor.authorConway, Y
dc.contributor.authorBurton, C
dc.contributor.authorSmith, S
dc.contributor.authorSmalle, M
dc.contributor.authorChan, X
dc.contributor.authorAdisesh, A
dc.contributor.authorTanveer, S
dc.contributor.authorRoss, L
dc.contributor.authorThomson, I
dc.contributor.authorDevane, D
dc.contributor.authorGreenhalgh, T
dc.date.accessioned2020-11-05T00:55:30Z
dc.date.available2020-11-05T00:55:30Z
dc.date.issued2020-10-08
dc.date.submitted2020-11-04
dc.identifier.pmid33028441
dc.identifier.doi10.1017/ice.2020.1243
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10144/619752
dc.description.abstractBackground: Shortages of personal protective equipment during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have led to the extended use or reuse of single-use respirators and surgical masks by frontline healthcare workers. The evidence base underpinning such practices warrants examination. Objectives: To synthesize current guidance and systematic review evidence on extended use, reuse, or reprocessing of single-use surgical masks or filtering face-piece respirators. Data sources: We used the World Health Organization, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Public Health England websites to identify guidance. We used Medline, PubMed, Epistemonikos, Cochrane Database, and preprint servers for systematic reviews. Methods: Two reviewers conducted screening and data extraction. The quality of included systematic reviews was appraised using AMSTAR-2. Findings were narratively synthesized. Results: In total, 6 guidance documents were identified. Levels of detail and consistency across documents varied. They included 4 high-quality systematic reviews: 3 focused on reprocessing (decontamination) of N95 respirators and 1 focused on reprocessing of surgical masks. Vaporized hydrogen peroxide and ultraviolet germicidal irradiation were highlighted as the most promising reprocessing methods, but evidence on the relative efficacy and safety of different methods was limited. We found no well-established methods for reprocessing respirators at scale. Conclusions: Evidence on the impact of extended use and reuse of surgical masks and respirators is limited, and gaps and inconsistencies exist in current guidance. Where extended use or reuse is being practiced, healthcare organizations should ensure that policies and systems are in place to ensure these practices are carried out safely and in line with available guidance.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherCambridge University Pressen_US
dc.rightsWith thanks to Cambridge University Press.en_US
dc.titleExtended use or reuse of single-use surgical masks and filtering face-piece respirators during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic: A rapid systematic review.en_US
dc.typeArticle
dc.identifier.eissn1559-6834
dc.identifier.journalInfection Control and Hospital Epidemiologyen_US
dc.source.journaltitleInfection control and hospital epidemiology
dc.source.beginpage1
dc.source.endpage9
refterms.dateFOA2020-11-05T00:55:31Z
dc.source.countryUnited States


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
Toomey et al 2020 Extended use ...
Size:
1.132Mb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record