Skip to main content
. 2011 Jul 6;2011(7):CD006207. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub4

Yin 2004.

Methods Case‐control study carried out in 10 hospitals of Guangdong province, China, comparing the rate of usage of protective measures in HCWs with SARS and without SARS. The rate of exposure to SARS between 2 groups was similar. The data were obtained by questionnaire. Limited information is available from the abstract and from partial translation of the original text in Chinese
Participants Description of cases: 77 HCWs who had contracted SARS
 Description of controls: 180 HCWs who had not contracted SARS
 Both cases and controls had been working in isolation units and took part in delivering first aid and caring for SARS patients. No significant differences were noted between cases and controls for a series of variables
Interventions Mouth mask
 Thick mouth mask (more than 12 layers of cloths)
 Use one‐off paper mouth mask
 Never use mouth mask
 Wear eye mask if necessary
 Protecting for nose and eyes mucosa
 Wear shoe gloves
 Wear barrier gown
 Wear hand gloves
 Rinse out mouth
 Take bath and change clothes before home
 Check mouth mask
 Intake oseltamivir phosphate orally
 Never eating and smoking in the ward
 Handwashing and disinfection
 Using nose clamp
 Intake herbal Banlangen (Indigowoad Root) orally
Outcomes SARS
Notes Risk of bias: medium (inconsistencies in the text: lack of description of controls)
 Notes: the authors conclude that the combination of mouth mask, barrier gown, gloves, goggles, footwear, rinse out mouth and take bath and change clothes before provided significant protection and that there was a dose‐response relation with the more interventions used in combination the better the protection. Single measures such as wearing of a mask (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.99), goggles (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.41) and footwear (OR, 0.58 95% CI 0.39 to 0.86) were effective
 Limited information is available from the abstract and from partial translation of the original text in Chinese
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk N/A
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk N/A
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk N/A
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk N/A
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Unclear risk N/A