Plos One
-
This study aimed to investigate the knowledge, practices, and attitudes of medical professionals toward Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) for the prevention and treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). All 401 medical professionals were surveyed using an anonymous with an investigator using the Questionnaire star APP. The participants answered 14 questions; of the 401 participants, 55.2% agreed with the statement "TCM can be used for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19," 40.4% remained neutral, and 4.4% disagreed. ⋯ Multiple logistic regression analysis showed that age, major and received TCM treatment within the last five years were independent factors affecting the participants' attitudes. In the absence of specific drugs for COVID-19, more than half of the participants agreed that TCM could be used for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 and most participants are willing to take TCM to prevent COVID-19, although unsure about its effectiveness. The main information sources on TCM for the treatment and prevention of COVID-19 were social platforms and hospital training.
-
Swab pooling: A new method for large-scale RT-qPCR screening of SARS-CoV-2 avoiding sample dilution.
To minimize sample dilution effect on SARS-CoV-2 pool testing, we assessed analytical and diagnostic performance of a new methodology, namely swab pooling. In this method, swabs are pooled at the time of collection, as opposed to pooling of equal volumes from individually collected samples. Paired analysis of pooled and individual samples from 613 patients revealed 94 positive individuals. ⋯ Overall, 19,535 asymptomatic patients were screened using 4,400 RT-qPCR assays. This corresponds to an increase of 4.4 times in laboratory capacity and a reduction of 77% in required tests. Therefore, swab pooling represents a major alternative for reliable and large-scale screening of SARS-CoV-2 in low prevalence populations.
-
Clinical Trial
Community practice of using face masks for the prevention of COVID-19 in Saudi Arabia.
Community face masking is possibly of great value in reducing COVID-19 transmission, especially when universally adopted with high compliance. The aim of this study is to investigate the knowledge, common misconceptions, barriers, and the compliance of the community with the use of face masks for the prevention of COVID-19. A validated questionnaire was administered to the participants through a web link by using various social media. ⋯ In general, the study demonstrated a good attitude among participants towards wearing face masks. Although the respondents in the study were aware of the benefits of wearing face masks, the barriers may have decreased their desire to do so. These barriers include difficulty in breathing, discomfort, face irritation, and ear pain.
-
With the spread of Coronavirus Disease 2019 globally, more than 40,000 healthcare staff rushed to Wuhan, Hubei Province to fight against this threatening disease. All staff had to wear personal protective equipment (PPE) for several hours when caring for patients, which resulted in adverse skin reactions and injuries. In this study, we used an online questionnaire to collect the self-reported skin damages among the first-line medical staff in the epidemic. ⋯ The common clinical symptoms of skin reactions were redness, device-like mark, and burning pain in face; and dryness, dermatitis, and itch/irritation in hands. Three risk factors included gender, level of protection, and daily wearing time of PPE were identified that caused skin reactions among medical staff. 150 of 275 (54.55%) participants took preventive strategies like prophylactic dressings, however, more than 75% users had little knowledge about dressings. We suggest the frontline staff strengthened the protection of skin integrity and reduced the prevalence of adverse skin reactions after professional education.
-
Since the appearance of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the question regarding the efficacy of various hygiene measures and the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) has become the focus of scientific and above all public discussion. To compare respirators, medical face masks, and cloth masks and determine if it is recommendable to wear face masks to protect the individual wearer of the mask from inhaling airborne particles, we challenged 29 different masks with aerosols and tested the pressure drop as a surrogate for breathing resistance owing to the mask material. We found that Type II medical face masks showed the lowest pressure drop (12.9±6.8 Pa/cm2) and therefore additional breathing resistance, whereas respirators such as the KN95 (32.3±7.0 Pa/cm2) and FFP2 (26.8±7.4 Pa/cm2) showed the highest pressure drops among the tested masks. ⋯ Our results indicate that it seems recommendable to wear face masks for providing base protection and risk reduction against inhaling airborne particles, in low-risk situations. In our study, especially EN 14683 type II certified medical face masks showed protective effectiveness against aerosols accompanied by minimal additional breathing resistance. FFP2 Respirators, on the other hand, could be useful in high-risk situations but require greater breathing effort and therefore physical stress for users.