...
首页> 外文期刊>Influenza and other respiratory viruses. >A cluster randomized clinical trial comparing fit-tested and non-fit-tested N95 respirators to medical masks to prevent respiratory virus infection in health care workers
【24h】

A cluster randomized clinical trial comparing fit-tested and non-fit-tested N95 respirators to medical masks to prevent respiratory virus infection in health care workers

机译:一项随机分组的临床试验,将经过适当测试和未经适当测试的N95呼吸器与医用口罩进行比较,以防止医护人员呼吸道病毒感染

获取原文
           

摘要

Please cite this paper as: MacIntyre et al. (2011) A cluster randomized clinical trial comparing fit-tested and non-fit-tested N95 respirators to medical masks to prevent respiratory virus infection in health care workers. Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses DOI: 10.1111/j.1750-2659.2010.00198.x.Background We compared the efficacy of medical masks, N95 respirators (fit tested and non fit tested), in health care workers (HCWs).Methods A cluster randomized clinical trial (RCT) of 1441 HCWs in 15 Beijing hospitals was performed during the 2008/2009 winter. Participants wore masks or respirators during the entire work shift for 4 weeks. Outcomes included clinical respiratory illness (CRI), influenza-like illness (ILI), laboratory-confirmed respiratory virus infection and influenza. A convenience no-mask/respirator group of 481 health workers from nine hospitals was compared.Findings The rates of CRI (3·9% versus 6·7%), ILI (0·3% versus 0·6%), laboratory-confirmed respiratory virus (1·4% versus 2·6%) and influenza (0·3% versus 1%) infection were consistently lower for the N95 group compared to medical masks. By intention-to-treat analysis, when P values were adjusted for clustering, non-fit-tested N95 respirators were significantly more protective than medical masks against CRI, but no other outcomes were significant. The rates of all outcomes were higher in the convenience no-mask group compared to the intervention arms. There was no significant difference in outcomes between the N95 arms with and without fit testing. Rates of fit test failure were low. In a post hoc analysis adjusted for potential confounders, N95 masks and hospital level were significant, but medical masks, vaccination, handwashing and high-risk procedures were not.Interpretation Rates of infection in the medical mask group were double that in the N95 group. A benefit of respirators is suggested but would need to be confirmed by a larger trial, as this study may have been underpowered. The finding on fit testing is specific to the type of respirator used in the study and cannot be generalized to other respirators.Trial registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR), ACTRN: ACTRN12609000257268 (http://www.anzctr.org.au).
机译:请引用本文为:MacIntyre等。 (2011)一项集群随机临床试验,比较了适合测试的和未经适合测试的N95呼吸器与医用口罩,以防止医护人员呼吸道病毒感染。流行性感冒和其他呼吸道病毒DOI:10.1111 / j.1750-2659.2010.00198.x。背景我们比较了医疗口罩(HCW)中的医用口罩,N95呼吸器(适合测试和未经测试)的功效。在2008/2009年冬季,对15家北京医院的1441名HCW进行了随机临床试验(RCT)。在整个工作班次中,参与者佩戴口罩或口罩要持续4周。结果包括临床呼吸系统疾病(CRI),类流感疾病(ILI),实验室确认的呼吸道病毒感染和流感。比较了来自9家医院的481名卫生工作者的无口罩/呼吸器便利组。结果CRI率(3·9%对6·7%),ILI(0·3%对0·6%),实验室-与医用口罩相比,N95组的确诊呼吸道病毒感染(1·4%对2·6%)和流感(0·3%对1%)感染始终较低。通过意向性治疗分析,当调整P值以进行聚类时,未经适合性测试的N95呼吸器比针对CRI的医用口罩具有更大的防护性,但其他结果均无明显意义。便捷无遮罩组的所有结局率均高于干预组。在进行和未进行适应性测试的情况下,N95臂之间的结果没有显着差异。拟合测试失败率很低。在针对潜在混杂因素进行的事后分析中,N95口罩和医院水平很重要,而医用口罩,疫苗接种,洗手和高风险程序则不然。医用口罩组的感染率是N95组的两倍。建议使用呼吸器有益,但由于该研究可能功能不足,因此需要通过更大的试验来确认。适合性测试的发现特定于研究中使用的呼吸器类型,不能推广到其他呼吸器。试验注册澳大利亚新西兰临床试验注册中心(ANZCTR),ACTRN:ACTRN12609000257268(http://www.anzctr.org)。 au)。

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号