Summary of findings 9. Procedures: Doffing according to 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 low1,2,3 | 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 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 The randomisation procedure was unclear and so we downgraded with one level due to study limitations. 2 This is a simulation study so we downgraded with one level because of indirectness. 3 One cross‐over study with 50 participants and so we downgraded with one level due to imprecision.