A prospective clinical evaluation of a patient isolation hood during the COVID-19 pandemic
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Article activity feed
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.02.19.21251739: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement IRB: Further details about the personal isolation McMonty Hood12 and the TGA adapted13 The hospital Ethics Committee Adverse Events Reporting form are contained in Supplementary Appendix 1.
Consent: Participants or their medical treatment decision maker (MTDM) provided consent for use of the personal isolation hood (Supplementary Appendix 2).Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
Resul…SciScore for 10.1101/2021.02.19.21251739: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement IRB: Further details about the personal isolation McMonty Hood12 and the TGA adapted13 The hospital Ethics Committee Adverse Events Reporting form are contained in Supplementary Appendix 1.
Consent: Participants or their medical treatment decision maker (MTDM) provided consent for use of the personal isolation hood (Supplementary Appendix 2).Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:Our study has limitations. By its nature it was unblinded, and the single health centre sample size was small. We did not distinguish between nurse/doctor/other questionnaire responses, or conduct detailed investigation of infection control procedures. Further bias may have arisen due to ICU staff and ICU researcher familiarity. We did not measure viral loads within/exterior to the isolation hoods. We had no ability to adjust for potential confounders. While the observed attack rate for ICU registered nurses was low it remains uncertain if the isolation hood reduces HCW COVID-19 infections: no causal inference may be drawn. This study complements our pre-clinical assessment of the isolation hood’s efficacy of limiting aerosol spread.12 The results of this study support the conduct of translational research and implementation studies of the isolation hood in other hospital areas and other jurisdictions. This study provides evidence of the safety and comfort of an isolation hood as part of routine treatment of patients with COVID-19. There was a high rate of acceptance by patients and staff. It is apparent that HCWs feel safer when treating patients using a personal ventilation hood. It is plausible the isolation hood reduces COVID-19 HCW infections. Additional studies to define the role of this device are indicated.
Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.
Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.
Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.
Results from rtransparent:- Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- No protocol registration statement was detected.
-
