Courtney Price1, Maxim Ben-Yakov2, Joseph Choi3, Ani Orchanian-Cheff4, Davy Tawadrous5. 1. Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada. Electronic address: cpric016@uottawa.ca. 2. Division of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Toronto General Hospital - Emergency Department, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada. Electronic address: maxim.benyakov@utoronto.ca. 3. Division of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Toronto General Hospital - Emergency Department, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada. Electronic address: joseph.choi@utoronto.ca. 4. Library and Information Services, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada. Electronic address: ani.orchanian-cheff@uhn.ca. 5. Division of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Toronto General Hospital - Emergency Department, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada. Electronic address: davy.tawadrous@uhn.ca.
Abstract
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.
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.
Authors: Brigitte M Borg; Christian Osadnik; Keith Adam; David G Chapman; Catherine E Farrow; Vanda Glavas; Kerry Hancock; Celia J Lanteri; Ewan G Morris; Nicholas Romeo; Elena K Schneider-Futschik; Hiran Selvadurai Journal: Respirology Date: 2022-08-10 Impact factor: 6.175