| People | Locations | Statistics |
|---|---|---|
| Naji, M. |
| |
| Motta, Antonella |
| |
| Aletan, Dirar |
| |
| Mohamed, Tarek |
| |
| Ertürk, Emre |
| |
| Taccardi, Nicola |
| |
| Kononenko, Denys |
| |
| Petrov, R. H. | Madrid |
|
| Alshaaer, Mazen | Brussels |
|
| Bih, L. |
| |
| Casati, R. |
| |
| Muller, Hermance |
| |
| Kočí, Jan | Prague |
|
| Šuljagić, Marija |
| |
| Kalteremidou, Kalliopi-Artemi | Brussels |
|
| Azam, Siraj |
| |
| Ospanova, Alyiya |
| |
| Blanpain, Bart |
| |
| Ali, M. A. |
| |
| Popa, V. |
| |
| Rančić, M. |
| |
| Ollier, Nadège |
| |
| Azevedo, Nuno Monteiro |
| |
| Landes, Michael |
| |
| Rignanese, Gian-Marco |
|
Storgaard, Merete
in Cooperation with on an Cooperation-Score of 37%
Topics
Publications (1/1 displayed)
Places of action
| Organizations | Location | People |
|---|
article
SARS-CoV-2 Infection Rates Following Use of Regular Compared With Defective Respirators When Caring for COVID-19 Patients: A Retrospective Follow-up Study
Abstract
<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:sec><jats:title>Background</jats:title><jats:p>There is strong observational evidence that respirators are highly effective in protecting the users from being infected with Middle East respiratory syndrome and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV), but the evidence for SARS-CoV-2 during daily work is limited. This study utilized a subset of healthcare workers’ temporary use of a new brand respirator with frequent defects when caring for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients to assess the protective effect of regular respirators against SARS-CoV-2 infection.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Methods</jats:title><jats:p>We retrospectively followed 463 participants wearing a regular respirator and 168 wearing the new brand respirator day-by-day when caring for COVID-19 patients until testing polymerase chain reaction positive for SARS-CoV-2 between 27th December 2020 and 14th January 2021.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results</jats:title><jats:p>We observed seven and eight incident SARS-CoV-2-infected cases. This corresponded with daily infection rates of 0.2 and 0.5%, an incidence rate ratio of 0.4 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.1; 1.0], and an incidence rate difference of 0.3% (95% CI −0.1; 0.8) when comparing a regular with the new brand respirator.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Discussion</jats:title><jats:p>We regard the new brand respirator a sham intervention, and this study thus provides further evidence for the protective effect of respirators when exposed to SARS-CoV-2 virus.</jats:p></jats:sec>