Impact of personal protective equipment use on health care workers’ physical health during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review and meta-analysis

  1. Petros Galanis
  2. Irene Vraka
  3. Despoina Fragkou
  4. Angeliki Bilali
  5. Daphne Kaitelidou

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1016/j.ajic.2021.04.084
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.02.03.21251056: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Data sources and strategy: We applied the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines [19] and the Cochrane criteria [20] for this systematic review and meta-analysis.
    Cochrane criteria
    suggested: None
    We searched PubMed, Medline, Scopus, ProQuest, CINAHL and pre-print services (medRxiv) from January 1, 2020 to December 27, 2020.
    PubMed
    suggested: (PubMed, RRID:SCR_004846)
    Medline
    suggested: (MEDLINE, RRID:SCR_002185)
    ProQuest
    suggested: (ProQuest, RRID:SCR_006093)

    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 several limitations introducing bias. First, 10 out of 14 included studies were conducted in Asia and thus further studies should be performed worldwide, allowing us to generalize the results. Also, quality of studies was poor (in nine studies) or moderate (in five studies), while adverse events were more frequent in studies with poor quality compared to those with moderate quality. There is a need to perform more valid studies since studies with poor quality may inflate the results. In the same way, the fact that the assessment of adverse events was self-reported in 13 out of 14 studies may introduce information bias that exaggerates the frequency of adverse events. This bias could be eliminated with clinical diagnosis of adverse events due to PPE use. Variability in study designs and populations introduces high heterogeneity in our meta-analysis. We applied a random effect model and we performed subgroup and meta-regression analysis to overcome this issue. We searched six databases and the reference lists of the studies included in our review but always there is a probability to omit relevant studies. Data regarding the factors that were related with a greater risk of adverse events were scarce and only six studies used multivariable analysis to eliminate confounders. Also, causal inferences between risk factors and adverse events are impossible since all studies were cross-sectional. Thus, studies with more appropriate design (e.g. cohort studies and case-con...

    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 scite Reference Check: We found one citation with an erratum. We recommend checking the erratum to confirm that it does not impact the accuracy of your citation.

    DOIStatusTitle
    10.1007/s11764-019-00793-7Has correctionCancer survivors who fully participate in the PROFILES regis…

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.02.03.21251056v1 on medRxiv