↓ Skip to main content

Respiratory consequences of N95-type Mask usage in pregnant healthcare workers—a controlled clinical study

Overview of attention for article published in Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#2 of 1,187)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
twitter
964 tweeters
peer_reviews
1 peer review site
facebook
5 Facebook pages
video
9 video uploaders

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
103 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Respiratory consequences of N95-type Mask usage in pregnant healthcare workers—a controlled clinical study
Published in
Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13756-015-0086-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pearl Shuang Ye Tong, Anita Sugam Kale, Kailyn Ng, Amelia Peiwen Loke, Mahesh Arjandas Choolani, Chin Leong Lim, Yiong Huak Chan, Yap Seng Chong, Paul Anantharajah Tambyah, Eu-Leong Yong

Abstract

Outbreaks of emerging infectious diseases have led to guidelines recommending the routine use of N95 respirators for healthcare workers, many of whom are women of childbearing age. The respiratory effects of prolonged respirator use on pregnant women are unclear although there has been no definite evidence of harm from past use. We conducted a two-phase controlled clinical study on healthy pregnant women between 27 to 32 weeks gestation. In phase I, energy expenditure corresponding to the workload of routine nursing tasks was determined. In phase II, pulmonary function of 20 subjects was measured whilst at rest and exercising to the predetermined workload while breathing ambient air first, then breathing through N95-mask materials. Exercising at 3 MET while breathing through N95-mask materials reduced mean tidal volume (TV) by 23.0 % (95 % CI -33.5 % to -10.5 %, p < 0.001) and lowered minute ventilation (VE) by 25.8 % (95 % CI -34.2 % to -15.8 %, p < 0.001), with no significant change in breathing frequency compared to breathing ambient air. Volumes of oxygen consumption (VO2) and carbon dioxide expired (VCO2) were also significantly reduced; VO2 by 13.8 % (95 % CI -24.2 % to -3 %, p = 0.013) and VCO2 by 17.7 %, (95 % CI -28.1 % to -8.6 %, p = 0.001). Although no changes in the inspired oxygen and carbon dioxide concentrations were demonstrated, breathing through N95-mask materials during low intensity work (3 MET) reduced expired oxygen concentration by 3.2 % (95 % CI: -4.1 % to -2.2 %, p < 0.001), and increased expired carbon dioxide by 8.9 % (95 % CI: 6.9 % to 13.1 %; p <0.001) suggesting an increase in metabolism. There were however no changes in the maternal and fetal heart rates, finger-tip capillary lactate levels and oxygen saturation and rating of perceived exertion at the work intensity investigated. Breathing through N95 mask materials have been shown to impede gaseous exchange and impose an additional workload on the metabolic system of pregnant healthcare workers, and this needs to be taken into consideration in guidelines for respirator use. The benefits of using N95 mask to prevent serious emerging infectious diseases should be weighed against potential respiratory consequences associated with extended N95 respirator usage. The study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov, identifier NCT00265926.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 964 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 103 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 103 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 15%
Student > Bachelor 15 15%
Researcher 12 12%
Student > Master 10 10%
Other 9 9%
Other 17 17%
Unknown 25 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 14%
Engineering 10 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 6%
Social Sciences 4 4%
Other 8 8%
Unknown 31 30%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 819. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 May 2022.
All research outputs
#15,869
of 21,175,128 outputs
Outputs from Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control
#2
of 1,187 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#187
of 394,822 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control
#1
of 85 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,175,128 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,187 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 394,822 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 85 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.