Personal protective equipment for reducing the risk of COVID-19 infection among healthcare workers involved in emergency trauma surgery during the pandemic: an umbrella review protocol

  1. Dylan P Griswold
  2. Andres Gempeler
  3. Angelos G Kolias
  4. Peter J Hutchinson
  5. Andres M Rubiano

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Many healthcare facilities in low-income and middle-income countries are inadequately resourced and may lack optimal organisation and governance, especially concerning surgical health systems. COVID-19 has the potential to decimate these already strained surgical healthcare services unless health systems take stringent measures to protect healthcare workers (HCWs) from viral exposure and ensure the continuity of specialised care for patients. The objective of this broad evidence synthesis is to identify and summarise the available literature regarding the efficacy of different personal protective equipment (PPE) in reducing the risk of COVID-19 infection in health personnel caring for patients undergoing trauma surgery in low-resource environments.

Methods

We will conduct several searches in the L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence) platform for COVID-19, a system that performs automated regular searches in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and over 30 other sources. The search results will be presented according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flow diagram. This review will preferentially consider systematic reviews of experimental and quasi-experimental studies, as well as individual studies of such designs, evaluating the effect of different PPE on the risk of COVID-19 infection in HCWs involved in emergency trauma surgery. Critical appraisal of eligible studies for methodological quality will be conducted. Data will be extracted using the standardised data extraction tool in Covidence. Studies will, when possible, be pooled in a statistical meta-analysis using JBI SUMARI. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach for grading the certainty of evidence will be followed and a summary of findings will be created.

Ethics and dissemination

Ethical approval is not required for this review. The plan for dissemination is to publish review findings in a peer-reviewed journal and present findings at high-level conferences that engage the most pertinent stakeholders.

PROSPERO registration number

CRD42020198267.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045598
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.09.26.20201954: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    RandomizationWe will search for systematic reviews and randomized trials evaluating the effect of different personal protective equipment (PPE) on the risk of COVID-19 infection in personnel involved in emergency trauma surgery during the pandemic.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    5] Search strategy: We will conduct several searches in the L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence) platform for COVID-19, a system that performs automated regular searches in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled
    Embase
    suggested: (EMBASE, RRID:SCR_001650)
    Information sources: The databases to be searched include the L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence) platform for COVID-19, a system that performs automated regular searches in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and over thirty other sources.
    PubMed
    suggested: (PubMed, RRID:SCR_004846)
    Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials
    suggested: (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, RRID:SCR_006576)

    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: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    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.

    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 10.1101/2020.09.26.20201954v1 on medRxiv