Protecting healthcare workers from pandemic influenza: N95 or surgical masks?
Identifieur interne : 001411 ( PascalFrancis/Corpus ); précédent : 001410; suivant : 001412Protecting healthcare workers from pandemic influenza: N95 or surgical masks?
Auteurs : Jan Gralton ; Mary-Louise MclawsSource :
- Critical care medicine [ 0090-3493 ] ; 2010.
Descripteurs français
- Pascal (Inist)
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
Abstract
Objective: The successful management of an influenza pandemic will be reliant on the expertise of healthcare workers at high risk for occupationally acquired influenza. Recommended infection control measures for healthcare workers include surgical masks to protect against droplet-spread respiratory transmissible infections and N95 masks to protect against aerosol-spread infections. A literature review was undertaken for evidence of superior protective value of N95 masks or surgical masks for healthcare workers against influenza and extraneous factors influencing conferred protection. Methods: Four scientific search engines using 12 search sequences identified 21 mask studies in healthcare settings for the prevention of transmission of respiratory syncytial virus, Bordetella pertussis, and severe acute respiratory syndrome. Each was critically assessed in accordance with Australian National Health Medical Research Council guidelines. An additional 25 laboratory-based publications were also reviewed. Results: All studies reviewed used medium or lower level evidence study design. In the majority of studies, important con-founders included the unrecognized impact of concurrent bundling of other infection control measures, mask compliance, contamination from improper doffing of masks, and ocular inoculation. Only three studies directly compared the protective value of surgical masks with N95 masks. The majority of laboratory studies identified both mask types as having a range of filtration efficiency, yet N95 masks afford superior protection against particles of a similar size to influenza. Conclusions: World Health Organization guidelines recommend surgical masks for all patient care with the exception of N95 masks for aerosol generating procedures. Because of the paucity of high-quality studies in the healthcare setting, the advocacy of mask types is not entirely evidence-based. Evidence from laboratory studies of potential airborne spread of influenza from shedding patients indicate that guidelines related to the current 1-meter respiratory zone may need to be extended to a larger respiratory zone and include protection from ocular inoculation.
Notice en format standard (ISO 2709)
Pour connaître la documentation sur le format Inist Standard.
pA |
|
---|
Format Inist (serveur)
NO : | PASCAL 10-0159611 INIST |
---|---|
ET : | Protecting healthcare workers from pandemic influenza: N95 or surgical masks? |
AU : | GRALTON (Jan); MCLAWS (Mary-Louise) |
AF : | School of Public Health & Community Medicine, The University of New South Wales/Sydney NSW/Australie (1 aut., 2 aut.) |
DT : | Publication en série; Niveau analytique |
SO : | Critical care medicine; ISSN 0090-3493; Coden CCMDC7; Etats-Unis; Da. 2010; Vol. 38; No. 2; Pp. 657-667; Bibl. 97 ref. |
LA : | Anglais |
EA : | Objective: The successful management of an influenza pandemic will be reliant on the expertise of healthcare workers at high risk for occupationally acquired influenza. Recommended infection control measures for healthcare workers include surgical masks to protect against droplet-spread respiratory transmissible infections and N95 masks to protect against aerosol-spread infections. A literature review was undertaken for evidence of superior protective value of N95 masks or surgical masks for healthcare workers against influenza and extraneous factors influencing conferred protection. Methods: Four scientific search engines using 12 search sequences identified 21 mask studies in healthcare settings for the prevention of transmission of respiratory syncytial virus, Bordetella pertussis, and severe acute respiratory syndrome. Each was critically assessed in accordance with Australian National Health Medical Research Council guidelines. An additional 25 laboratory-based publications were also reviewed. Results: All studies reviewed used medium or lower level evidence study design. In the majority of studies, important con-founders included the unrecognized impact of concurrent bundling of other infection control measures, mask compliance, contamination from improper doffing of masks, and ocular inoculation. Only three studies directly compared the protective value of surgical masks with N95 masks. The majority of laboratory studies identified both mask types as having a range of filtration efficiency, yet N95 masks afford superior protection against particles of a similar size to influenza. Conclusions: World Health Organization guidelines recommend surgical masks for all patient care with the exception of N95 masks for aerosol generating procedures. Because of the paucity of high-quality studies in the healthcare setting, the advocacy of mask types is not entirely evidence-based. Evidence from laboratory studies of potential airborne spread of influenza from shedding patients indicate that guidelines related to the current 1-meter respiratory zone may need to be extended to a larger respiratory zone and include protection from ocular inoculation. |
CC : | 002B27B; 002B27B02 |
FD : | Personnel sanitaire; Grippe; Chirurgie; Masque; Intubation; Réanimation; Soin intensif |
FG : | Virose; Infection |
ED : | Health staff; Influenza; Surgery; Mask; Intubation; Resuscitation; Intensive care |
EG : | Viral disease; Infection |
SD : | Personal sanitario; Gripe; Cirugía; Máscara; Intubación; Reanimación; Cuidado intensivo |
LO : | INIST-17751.354000181829320390 |
ID : | 10-0159611 |
Links to Exploration step
Pascal:10-0159611Le document en format XML
<record><TEI><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en" level="a">Protecting healthcare workers from pandemic influenza: N95 or surgical masks?</title>
<author><name sortKey="Gralton, Jan" sort="Gralton, Jan" uniqKey="Gralton J" first="Jan" last="Gralton">Jan Gralton</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="01"><s1>School of Public Health & Community Medicine, The University of New South Wales</s1>
<s2>Sydney NSW</s2>
<s3>AUS</s3>
<sZ>1 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>2 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Mclaws, Mary Louise" sort="Mclaws, Mary Louise" uniqKey="Mclaws M" first="Mary-Louise" last="Mclaws">Mary-Louise Mclaws</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="01"><s1>School of Public Health & Community Medicine, The University of New South Wales</s1>
<s2>Sydney NSW</s2>
<s3>AUS</s3>
<sZ>1 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>2 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
</titleStmt>
<publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">INIST</idno>
<idno type="inist">10-0159611</idno>
<date when="2010">2010</date>
<idno type="stanalyst">PASCAL 10-0159611 INIST</idno>
<idno type="RBID">Pascal:10-0159611</idno>
<idno type="wicri:Area/PascalFrancis/Corpus">001411</idno>
</publicationStmt>
<sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title xml:lang="en" level="a">Protecting healthcare workers from pandemic influenza: N95 or surgical masks?</title>
<author><name sortKey="Gralton, Jan" sort="Gralton, Jan" uniqKey="Gralton J" first="Jan" last="Gralton">Jan Gralton</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="01"><s1>School of Public Health & Community Medicine, The University of New South Wales</s1>
<s2>Sydney NSW</s2>
<s3>AUS</s3>
<sZ>1 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>2 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Mclaws, Mary Louise" sort="Mclaws, Mary Louise" uniqKey="Mclaws M" first="Mary-Louise" last="Mclaws">Mary-Louise Mclaws</name>
<affiliation><inist:fA14 i1="01"><s1>School of Public Health & Community Medicine, The University of New South Wales</s1>
<s2>Sydney NSW</s2>
<s3>AUS</s3>
<sZ>1 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>2 aut.</sZ>
</inist:fA14>
</affiliation>
</author>
</analytic>
<series><title level="j" type="main">Critical care medicine</title>
<title level="j" type="abbreviated">Crit. care med.</title>
<idno type="ISSN">0090-3493</idno>
<imprint><date when="2010">2010</date>
</imprint>
</series>
</biblStruct>
</sourceDesc>
<seriesStmt><title level="j" type="main">Critical care medicine</title>
<title level="j" type="abbreviated">Crit. care med.</title>
<idno type="ISSN">0090-3493</idno>
</seriesStmt>
</fileDesc>
<profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>Health staff</term>
<term>Influenza</term>
<term>Intensive care</term>
<term>Intubation</term>
<term>Mask</term>
<term>Resuscitation</term>
<term>Surgery</term>
</keywords>
<keywords scheme="Pascal" xml:lang="fr"><term>Personnel sanitaire</term>
<term>Grippe</term>
<term>Chirurgie</term>
<term>Masque</term>
<term>Intubation</term>
<term>Réanimation</term>
<term>Soin intensif</term>
</keywords>
</textClass>
</profileDesc>
</teiHeader>
<front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">Objective: The successful management of an influenza pandemic will be reliant on the expertise of healthcare workers at high risk for occupationally acquired influenza. Recommended infection control measures for healthcare workers include surgical masks to protect against droplet-spread respiratory transmissible infections and N95 masks to protect against aerosol-spread infections. A literature review was undertaken for evidence of superior protective value of N95 masks or surgical masks for healthcare workers against influenza and extraneous factors influencing conferred protection. Methods: Four scientific search engines using 12 search sequences identified 21 mask studies in healthcare settings for the prevention of transmission of respiratory syncytial virus, Bordetella pertussis, and severe acute respiratory syndrome. Each was critically assessed in accordance with Australian National Health Medical Research Council guidelines. An additional 25 laboratory-based publications were also reviewed. Results: All studies reviewed used medium or lower level evidence study design. In the majority of studies, important con-founders included the unrecognized impact of concurrent bundling of other infection control measures, mask compliance, contamination from improper doffing of masks, and ocular inoculation. Only three studies directly compared the protective value of surgical masks with N95 masks. The majority of laboratory studies identified both mask types as having a range of filtration efficiency, yet N95 masks afford superior protection against particles of a similar size to influenza. Conclusions: World Health Organization guidelines recommend surgical masks for all patient care with the exception of N95 masks for aerosol generating procedures. Because of the paucity of high-quality studies in the healthcare setting, the advocacy of mask types is not entirely evidence-based. Evidence from laboratory studies of potential airborne spread of influenza from shedding patients indicate that guidelines related to the current 1-meter respiratory zone may need to be extended to a larger respiratory zone and include protection from ocular inoculation.</div>
</front>
</TEI>
<inist><standard h6="B"><pA><fA01 i1="01" i2="1"><s0>0090-3493</s0>
</fA01>
<fA02 i1="01"><s0>CCMDC7</s0>
</fA02>
<fA03 i2="1"><s0>Crit. care med.</s0>
</fA03>
<fA05><s2>38</s2>
</fA05>
<fA06><s2>2</s2>
</fA06>
<fA08 i1="01" i2="1" l="ENG"><s1>Protecting healthcare workers from pandemic influenza: N95 or surgical masks?</s1>
</fA08>
<fA11 i1="01" i2="1"><s1>GRALTON (Jan)</s1>
</fA11>
<fA11 i1="02" i2="1"><s1>MCLAWS (Mary-Louise)</s1>
</fA11>
<fA14 i1="01"><s1>School of Public Health & Community Medicine, The University of New South Wales</s1>
<s2>Sydney NSW</s2>
<s3>AUS</s3>
<sZ>1 aut.</sZ>
<sZ>2 aut.</sZ>
</fA14>
<fA20><s1>657-667</s1>
</fA20>
<fA21><s1>2010</s1>
</fA21>
<fA23 i1="01"><s0>ENG</s0>
</fA23>
<fA43 i1="01"><s1>INIST</s1>
<s2>17751</s2>
<s5>354000181829320390</s5>
</fA43>
<fA44><s0>0000</s0>
<s1>© 2010 INIST-CNRS. All rights reserved.</s1>
</fA44>
<fA45><s0>97 ref.</s0>
</fA45>
<fA47 i1="01" i2="1"><s0>10-0159611</s0>
</fA47>
<fA60><s1>P</s1>
</fA60>
<fA61><s0>A</s0>
</fA61>
<fA64 i1="01" i2="1"><s0>Critical care medicine</s0>
</fA64>
<fA66 i1="01"><s0>USA</s0>
</fA66>
<fC01 i1="01" l="ENG"><s0>Objective: The successful management of an influenza pandemic will be reliant on the expertise of healthcare workers at high risk for occupationally acquired influenza. Recommended infection control measures for healthcare workers include surgical masks to protect against droplet-spread respiratory transmissible infections and N95 masks to protect against aerosol-spread infections. A literature review was undertaken for evidence of superior protective value of N95 masks or surgical masks for healthcare workers against influenza and extraneous factors influencing conferred protection. Methods: Four scientific search engines using 12 search sequences identified 21 mask studies in healthcare settings for the prevention of transmission of respiratory syncytial virus, Bordetella pertussis, and severe acute respiratory syndrome. Each was critically assessed in accordance with Australian National Health Medical Research Council guidelines. An additional 25 laboratory-based publications were also reviewed. Results: All studies reviewed used medium or lower level evidence study design. In the majority of studies, important con-founders included the unrecognized impact of concurrent bundling of other infection control measures, mask compliance, contamination from improper doffing of masks, and ocular inoculation. Only three studies directly compared the protective value of surgical masks with N95 masks. The majority of laboratory studies identified both mask types as having a range of filtration efficiency, yet N95 masks afford superior protection against particles of a similar size to influenza. Conclusions: World Health Organization guidelines recommend surgical masks for all patient care with the exception of N95 masks for aerosol generating procedures. Because of the paucity of high-quality studies in the healthcare setting, the advocacy of mask types is not entirely evidence-based. Evidence from laboratory studies of potential airborne spread of influenza from shedding patients indicate that guidelines related to the current 1-meter respiratory zone may need to be extended to a larger respiratory zone and include protection from ocular inoculation.</s0>
</fC01>
<fC02 i1="01" i2="X"><s0>002B27B</s0>
</fC02>
<fC02 i1="02" i2="X"><s0>002B27B02</s0>
</fC02>
<fC03 i1="01" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Personnel sanitaire</s0>
<s5>09</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="01" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Health staff</s0>
<s5>09</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="01" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Personal sanitario</s0>
<s5>09</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="02" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Grippe</s0>
<s5>10</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="02" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Influenza</s0>
<s5>10</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="02" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Gripe</s0>
<s5>10</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="03" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Chirurgie</s0>
<s5>11</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="03" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Surgery</s0>
<s5>11</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="03" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Cirugía</s0>
<s5>11</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="04" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Masque</s0>
<s5>12</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="04" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Mask</s0>
<s5>12</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="04" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Máscara</s0>
<s5>12</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="05" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Intubation</s0>
<s5>13</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="05" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Intubation</s0>
<s5>13</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="05" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Intubación</s0>
<s5>13</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="06" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Réanimation</s0>
<s5>14</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="06" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Resuscitation</s0>
<s5>14</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="06" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Reanimación</s0>
<s5>14</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="07" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Soin intensif</s0>
<s5>15</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="07" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Intensive care</s0>
<s5>15</s5>
</fC03>
<fC03 i1="07" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Cuidado intensivo</s0>
<s5>15</s5>
</fC03>
<fC07 i1="01" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Virose</s0>
</fC07>
<fC07 i1="01" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Viral disease</s0>
</fC07>
<fC07 i1="01" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Virosis</s0>
</fC07>
<fC07 i1="02" i2="X" l="FRE"><s0>Infection</s0>
</fC07>
<fC07 i1="02" i2="X" l="ENG"><s0>Infection</s0>
</fC07>
<fC07 i1="02" i2="X" l="SPA"><s0>Infección</s0>
</fC07>
<fN21><s1>102</s1>
</fN21>
<fN44 i1="01"><s1>OTO</s1>
</fN44>
<fN82><s1>OTO</s1>
</fN82>
</pA>
</standard>
<server><NO>PASCAL 10-0159611 INIST</NO>
<ET>Protecting healthcare workers from pandemic influenza: N95 or surgical masks?</ET>
<AU>GRALTON (Jan); MCLAWS (Mary-Louise)</AU>
<AF>School of Public Health & Community Medicine, The University of New South Wales/Sydney NSW/Australie (1 aut., 2 aut.)</AF>
<DT>Publication en série; Niveau analytique</DT>
<SO>Critical care medicine; ISSN 0090-3493; Coden CCMDC7; Etats-Unis; Da. 2010; Vol. 38; No. 2; Pp. 657-667; Bibl. 97 ref.</SO>
<LA>Anglais</LA>
<EA>Objective: The successful management of an influenza pandemic will be reliant on the expertise of healthcare workers at high risk for occupationally acquired influenza. Recommended infection control measures for healthcare workers include surgical masks to protect against droplet-spread respiratory transmissible infections and N95 masks to protect against aerosol-spread infections. A literature review was undertaken for evidence of superior protective value of N95 masks or surgical masks for healthcare workers against influenza and extraneous factors influencing conferred protection. Methods: Four scientific search engines using 12 search sequences identified 21 mask studies in healthcare settings for the prevention of transmission of respiratory syncytial virus, Bordetella pertussis, and severe acute respiratory syndrome. Each was critically assessed in accordance with Australian National Health Medical Research Council guidelines. An additional 25 laboratory-based publications were also reviewed. Results: All studies reviewed used medium or lower level evidence study design. In the majority of studies, important con-founders included the unrecognized impact of concurrent bundling of other infection control measures, mask compliance, contamination from improper doffing of masks, and ocular inoculation. Only three studies directly compared the protective value of surgical masks with N95 masks. The majority of laboratory studies identified both mask types as having a range of filtration efficiency, yet N95 masks afford superior protection against particles of a similar size to influenza. Conclusions: World Health Organization guidelines recommend surgical masks for all patient care with the exception of N95 masks for aerosol generating procedures. Because of the paucity of high-quality studies in the healthcare setting, the advocacy of mask types is not entirely evidence-based. Evidence from laboratory studies of potential airborne spread of influenza from shedding patients indicate that guidelines related to the current 1-meter respiratory zone may need to be extended to a larger respiratory zone and include protection from ocular inoculation.</EA>
<CC>002B27B; 002B27B02</CC>
<FD>Personnel sanitaire; Grippe; Chirurgie; Masque; Intubation; Réanimation; Soin intensif</FD>
<FG>Virose; Infection</FG>
<ED>Health staff; Influenza; Surgery; Mask; Intubation; Resuscitation; Intensive care</ED>
<EG>Viral disease; Infection</EG>
<SD>Personal sanitario; Gripe; Cirugía; Máscara; Intubación; Reanimación; Cuidado intensivo</SD>
<LO>INIST-17751.354000181829320390</LO>
<ID>10-0159611</ID>
</server>
</inist>
</record>
Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Sante/explor/PandemieGrippaleV1/Data/PascalFrancis/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 001411 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/PascalFrancis/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 001411 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien |wiki= Sante |area= PandemieGrippaleV1 |flux= PascalFrancis |étape= Corpus |type= RBID |clé= Pascal:10-0159611 |texte= Protecting healthcare workers from pandemic influenza: N95 or surgical masks? }}
![]() | This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.34. | ![]() |