Summary of findings 2. PPE‐types: One type of PPE versus another – Three types of PPE attire.
| Three types of PPE attire compared by number of contaminated spots | |||||
| Patient or population: Healthcare worker volunteers Settings: Simulation study Intervention: More protective attire, not permeable not breathable (A) Comparison: Less protective attire: permeable but breathable (B); fairly permeable, not breathable (D) | |||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | No of Participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | ||||
| Less protective type of PPE (B or D) | Most protective type of PPE attire (A) | ||||
|
Number of contaminated spots ‐ Neck fluorescent marker Follow‐up: post intervention |
The mean number of contaminated spots in control group B was 0.12 spots | The mean number of contaminated spots in the intervention group was 0.7 higher (0.26 lower to 1.66 higher) | 50 (1 study) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2,3 | |
|
Number of contaminated spots ‐ Foot fluorescent marker Follow‐up: post intervention |
The mean number of contaminated spots in the control group B was 2.86 spots | The mean number of contaminated spots in the intervention group was 0.96 lower (2.35 lower to 0.43 higher) | 50 (1 study) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2,3 | |
|
Number of contaminated spots ‐ Palm fluorescent marker Follow‐up: post intervention |
The mean number of contaminated spots in the control group B was 17.83 | The mean number of contaminated spots in the intervention group was 7.72 lower (15.65 lower to 0.21 higher) | 50 (1 study) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2,3 | |
|
Number of contaminated spots ‐ Foot fluorescent marker Follow‐up: post intervention |
The mean number of contaminated spots in the control group D was 4.96 | The mean number of contaminated spots in the intervention group was 4.1 lower (6.94 to 1.26 lower) | 50 (1 study) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2,3 | |
|
Number of contaminated spots ‐ Palm fluorescent marker Follow‐up: post intervention |
The mean number of contaminated spots in the control group D was 20.49 | The mean number of contaminated spots in the intervention group was 12.76 lower (21.62 to 3.9 lower) | 50 (1 study) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2,3 | |
| 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. | |||||
1 Simulation study, downgraded one level for indirectness 2 One study with 100 participants, 25 participants per arm, downgraded one level for imprecision
3 Unclear risk of bias in the study, downgraded one level