Summary of findings 5. Comparison 2: One procedure for donning/doffing versus another – CDC method versus individual doffing
| CDC method versus individual doffing for preventing contact with contaminated body fluids in healthcare staff | ||||||
|
Patient or population: healthcare staff volunteers Settings: simulation study Intervention: CDC method in doffing Control: Individual method of doffing | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of Participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| Individual doffing method | CDC recommended doffing method | |||||
|
Contamination with fluor marker when using gowns Follow-up: post intervention |
The mean contamination with fluor marker in the control group was 6.7 small spots | The mean contamination with fluor marker in the intervention group was 5.44 lower (7.43 to 3.45 lower) |
50 (1 study) |
⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low 1,2,3 |
Cross-over study; the analyses were unadjusted for the paired nature of the data but similar to the analysis of the authors who took this into account | |
|
Contamination with fluor marker when using aprons Follow-up: post intervention |
The mean contamination with fluor marker in the control group was 16.98 small spots | The mean contamination with fluor marker in the intervention group was 15.1 lower (19.28 to 10.92 lower) |
50 (1 study) |
⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low 1,2,3 |
||
| Infection with EVD | See comment | See comment | 0 (0 studies) |
See comment | No studies evaluated the effect of the interventions on infection rates. | |
| Compliance with guidance | See comment | See comment | 0 (0 studies) |
See comment | No studies evaluated the effect of the interventions on compliance with guidance. | |
The basis for the assumed risk is the control group risk. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group.
CI: Confidence interval;
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
Very low quality:We are very uncertain about the estimate.
Randomisation procedure unclear, downgraded one level
Simulation study, downgraded for indirectness
One cross-over study with 50 participants