Universal mobile protection system for aerosol‐generating medical interventions in COVID-19 patients

Straube, Florian; clemens, wendtner; Volz, Stefan; Dorwarth, Uwe; Engel, Markus; Schneider, Niklas; Lärmer, Jürgen; Nagel, Bernhard; Friederich, Patrick; Fisch, Richard; Rieß, Alexander; Benedikter, J.; Meyer, Joachim; Lewerenz, Bjoern; Schepp, Wolfgang; Schmid, Mathias; Dodt, Christoph; Schmidt, Wolfgang; Weidenbach, Katrin; Rogowski, Sebastian; Kossmann, Hans; Berger, Manuel; Gatos, Konstantin; Würstl, Benjamin; Deichstetter, Markus; Ellen.Hoffmann@muenchen,

doi:10.31219/osf.io/2s93d

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Two studies (2%, n = 2/83) used a device in pediatric laryngoscopy and bronchoscopy [ 54 , 55 ]. Nine studies (7%) discussed these devices for general AGMPs [ 22 , 25 , 32 , 46 , [56] , [57] , [58] , [59] , [60] ] and 9 (7%) for endoscopic procedures. [ 10 , 11 , 43 , 45 , [61] , [62] , [63] , [64] ]…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Barrier enclosure use during aerosol-generating medical procedures: A scoping review

Price

Ben-Yakov

Choi

et al. 2021

The American Journal of Emergency Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Barrier enclosure devices were introduced to protect against infectious disease transmission during aerosol generating medical procedures (AGMP). Recent discussion in the medical community has led to new designs and adoption despite limited evidence. A scoping review was conducted to characterize devices being used and their performance. Methods We conducted a scoping review of formal databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CENTRAL, Scopus), grey literature, and hand-searched relevant journals. Forward and reverse citation searching was completed on included articles. Article/full-text screening and data extraction was performed by two independent reviewers. Studies were categorized by publication type, device category, intended medical use, and outcomes (efficacy – ability to contain particles; efficiency – time to complete AGMP; and usability – user experience). Results Searches identified 6489 studies and 123 met criteria for inclusion (k = 0.81 title/abstract, k = 0.77 full-text). Most articles were published in 2020 (98%, n = 120) as letters/commentaries (58%, n = 71). Box systems represented 42% ( n = 52) of systems described, while plastic sheet systems accounted for 54% ( n = 66). The majority were used for airway management (67%, n = 83). Only half of articles described outcome measures (54%, n = 67); 82% ( n = 55) reporting efficacy, 39% ( n = 26) on usability, and 15% ( n = 10) on efficiency. Efficacy of devices in containing aerosols was limited and frequently dependent on use of suction devices. Conclusions While use of various barrier enclosure devices has become widespread during this pandemic, objective data of efficacy, efficiency, and usability is limited. Further controlled studies are required before adoption into routine clinical practice.

show abstract