International Observational Survey of the Effectiveness of Personal Protective Equipment during Endoscopic Procedures Performed in Patients with COVID-19

  1. Ryota Niikura
  2. Mitsuhiro Fujishiro
  3. Yousuke Nakai
  4. Koji Matsuda
  5. Takuya Kawahara
  6. Atsuo Yamada
  7. Yosuke Tsuji
  8. Yoku Hayakawa
  9. Kazuhiko Koike

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

<b><i>Introduction and Aims:</i></b> This international survey was performed to evaluate the cumulative incidence of nosocomial novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) among healthcare professionals during endoscopic procedures. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> We performed an international web-based self-reported questionnaire survey. Participants completed the questionnaires every week for 12 weeks. The questionnaire elicited responses regarding the development of COVID-19 and details of the personal protective equipment (PPE) used. <b><i>Results:</i></b> All 483 participants were included in the analysis. Participants had a mean age of 42.3 years and comprised 68.3% males. The geographic distribution of the study population was Asia (89.2%), Europe (2.9%), North and South America (4.8%), Oceania (0.6%), and Africa (1.5%). The most common endoscopy-related role of the participants was endoscopist (78.7%), and 74.5% had &#x3e;10 years of experience. Fourteen participants had performed 83 endoscopic procedures in patients positive for COVID-19. During the mean follow-up period of 4.95 weeks, there were no cases of COVID-19 when treating COVID-19 positive patients. The most common PPE used by participants treating patients with COVID-19 was a surgical mask plus N95 mask plus face shield, goggles, cap, long-sleeved isolation gown, and single pair of gloves. The most common PPE used by participants treating patients without COVID-19 was a surgical mask, no face shield but goggles, cap, long-sleeved isolation gown, and single pair of gloves during all endoscopic procedures. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> The risk of COVID-19 transmission during any endoscopic procedure was low in clinical practice.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1159/000513714
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.12.01.20240853: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementIRB: The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Tokyo Hospital (No.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Participants completed web-based questionnaires every week for 12 weeks, prompted by automated reminder emails using Google Forms®.
    Google Forms®
    suggested: None
    The statistical analyses were performed using SAS software (version 9.4; SAS Institute, Cary, NC).
    SAS Institute
    suggested: (Statistical Analysis System, RRID:SCR_008567)

    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:
    However, our study had some limitations. First, the primary outcome data were collected using self-reported questionnaires only, and we did not perform additional surveys, such as collection of PCR or computed tomography data, to confirm the events to protect the privacy of the participants. In addition, we may have missed some COVID-19 events because some participants developed severe pneumonia and did not respond to the survey during the follow-up period. However, we invited participants using a personal private network among academic experts, and we are continuously collecting data. Therefore, we believe the data to be both reliable and of high quality. Second, differential diagnosis of community-acquired and endoscopy-related SARS-CoV-2 infections may be difficult. Third, our primary outcome definition was COVID-19 development, not COVID-19 pneumonia, or other symptoms development. In conclusion, the risk of COVID-19 transmission during endoscopic procedures, including EGD, colonoscopy, ERCP and EUS, upper and lower GI hemostasis, and upper GI ESD, was low in PPE settings.

    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 10.1101/2020.12.01.20240853v1 on medRxiv