| Literature DB >> 34742636 |
Cheng-Wei Chan1, Chien-Hsiung Huang2.
Abstract
Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34742636 PMCID: PMC8556538 DOI: 10.1016/j.jfma.2021.10.019
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Formos Med Assoc ISSN: 0929-6646 Impact factor: 3.282
Figure 1A. Intubation box utilized at bedside, B. Movable swab shield utilized in negative pressure room, C. Extended swab shield in a park, D. Swab vehicle in a shopping mall, E. Swab station in the outside of emergency department, F. Positive pressure testing booth in the parking lot of hospital, and G. Swab container in a large outdoor parking lot.
The comparison of seven different swab testing devices.
| Blocking Ability | Cleaning Method | Estimated Cost (NTD) | Mobility | Air-conditioning | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intubation box | + | 75% alcohol | 1000 | +++ | No |
| Movable swab shield | + | 75% alcohol | 20,000 | +++ | No |
| Extended swab shield | ++ | 75% alcohol | 50,000 | ++ | No |
| Swab vehicle | +++ | 75% alcohol for external | 10,000 | +++ | Yes |
| Swab station | +++ | 75% alcohol for external | 200,000 | + | Yes |
| Positive pressure testing booth | +++ | 75% alcohol for external | 640,000 | + | Yes |
| Swab container | +++ | 75% alcohol for external | 600,000 | + | Yes |
External part includes acrylic plate and long rubber gloves.