For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
4
views
32
references
 Top references
cited by
22
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      195
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Portable HEPA Purifiers to Eliminate Airborne SARS-CoV-2: A Systematic Review

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective

          Current epidemiologic predictions of COVID-19 suggest that SARS-CoV-2 mitigation strategies must be implemented long-term. In-office aerosol-generating procedures pose a risk to staff and patients while necessitating examination room shutdown to allow aerosol decontamination by indwelling ventilation. This review summarizes the current state of knowledge on portable high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) purifiers’ effectiveness in eliminating airborne SARS-CoV-2 from indoor environments.

          Data Sources

          Medline, Embase, Cochrane Databases, and the World Health Organization’s COVID-19 Global Literature on Coronavirus Disease.

          Review Methods

          Data sources were systematically searched for original English-language published studies indexed up to January 14, 2021 per the following search strategy: (“HEPA” OR “High-efficiency” OR “High-efficiency particulate air” OR “Efficiency particulate” OR “Purifier” OR “Filter” OR “Cleaner” OR “Filtration”) AND (“COVID” OR “COVID-19” OR “SARS-CoV-2” OR “Coronavirus”). Additional relevant studies were identified by searching the reference lists of included articles.

          Results

          Eleven published studies have evaluated the effectiveness of portable HEPA purifiers in eliminating airborne SARS-CoV-2 with relevantly sized surrogate particles. Ten studies evaluated aerosols and submicron particles similar in size to SARS-CoV-2 virions. In all studies, portable HEPA purifiers were able to significantly reduce airborne SARS-CoV-2-surrogate particles. The addition of portable HEPA purifiers augmented other decontamination strategies such as ventilation.

          Conclusion

          Experimental studies provide evidence for portable HEPA purifiers’ potential to eliminate airborne SARS-CoV-2 and augment primary decontamination strategies such as ventilation. Based on filtration rates, additional air exchanges provided by portable HEPA purifiers may be calculated and room shutdown times potentially reduced after aerosol-generating procedures.

          Related collections

          Most cited references32

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found
          Is Open Access

          The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration.

          Alessandro Liberati, Douglas G. Altman, Jennifer Tetzlaff … (2009)
          Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement--a reporting guideline published in 1999--there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this Explanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
          Article 0 comments Cited 2396 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Utilization of the PICO framework to improve searching PubMed for clinical questions

            Connie Schardt, Martha Adams, Thomas Owens … (2007)
            Background Supporting 21st century health care and the practice of evidence-based medicine (EBM) requires ubiquitous access to clinical information and to knowledge-based resources to answer clinical questions. Many questions go unanswered, however, due to lack of skills in formulating questions, crafting effective search strategies, and accessing databases to identify best levels of evidence. Methods This randomized trial was designed as a pilot study to measure the relevancy of search results using three different interfaces for the PubMed search system. Two of the search interfaces utilized a specific framework called PICO, which was designed to focus clinical questions and to prompt for publication type or type of question asked. The third interface was the standard PubMed interface readily available on the Web. Study subjects were recruited from interns and residents on an inpatient general medicine rotation at an academic medical center in the US. Thirty-one subjects were randomized to one of the three interfaces, given 3 clinical questions, and asked to search PubMed for a set of relevant articles that would provide an answer for each question. The success of the search results was determined by a precision score, which compared the number of relevant or gold standard articles retrieved in a result set to the total number of articles retrieved in that set. Results Participants using the PICO templates (Protocol A or Protocol B) had higher precision scores for each question than the participants who used Protocol C, the standard PubMed Web interface. (Question 1: A = 35%, B = 28%, C = 20%; Question 2: A = 5%, B = 6%, C = 4%; Question 3: A = 1%, B = 0%, C = 0%) 95% confidence intervals were calculated for the precision for each question using a lower boundary of zero. However, the 95% confidence limits were overlapping, suggesting no statistical difference between the groups. Conclusion Due to the small number of searches for each arm, this pilot study could not demonstrate a statistically significant difference between the search protocols. However there was a trend towards higher precision that needs to be investigated in a larger study to determine if PICO can improve the relevancy of search results.
            Article 0 comments Cited 587 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              How can airborne transmission of COVID-19 indoors be minimised?

              Lidia Morawska, Julian Tang, William P Bahnfleth … (2020)
              During the rapid rise in COVID-19 illnesses and deaths globally, and notwithstanding recommended precautions, questions are voiced about routes of transmission for this pandemic disease. Inhaling small airborne droplets is probable as a third route of infection, in addition to more widely recognized transmission via larger respiratory droplets and direct contact with infected people or contaminated surfaces. While uncertainties remain regarding the relative contributions of the different transmission pathways, we argue that existing evidence is sufficiently strong to warrant engineering controls targeting airborne transmission as part of an overall strategy to limit infection risk indoors. Appropriate building engineering controls include sufficient and effective ventilation, possibly enhanced by particle filtration and air disinfection, avoiding air recirculation and avoiding overcrowding. Often, such measures can be easily implemented and without much cost, but if only they are recognised as significant in contributing to infection control goals. We believe that the use of engineering controls in public buildings, including hospitals, shops, offices, schools, kindergartens, libraries, restaurants, cruise ships, elevators, conference rooms or public transport, in parallel with effective application of other controls (including isolation and quarantine, social distancing and hand hygiene), would be an additional important measure globally to reduce the likelihood of transmission and thereby protect healthcare workers, patients and the general public.
              Article 0 comments Cited 505 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Title: Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery
                Abbreviated Title: Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg
                Publisher: SAGE Publications
                ISSN (Print): 0194-5998
                ISSN (Electronic): 1097-6817
                Publication date (Electronic): June 08 2021
                Page: 019459982110226
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Otorhinolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
                [2 ]Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
                [3 ]Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Kantonsspital Aarau, Aarau, Switzerland
                Article
                DOI: 10.1177/01945998211022636
                PubMed ID: 34098798
                SO-VID: 37f60103-0a44-4d7b-a230-dc7c30979cc3
                Copyright © © 2021
                License:

                http://journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license

                History

                Data availability:

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content195

                See all similar

                Cited by22

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors624

                See all reference authors