Evidence-informed decision about (de-)implementing return-to-work coordination to reduce sick leave: a case study.

BACKGROUND: Coordination of return to work (RtW) is implemented in many countries, but a Cochrane review found no considerable effect on workers' sick leave compared to usual care. The aim of the study is to analyse how the evidence from this review can be used for decisions about (de-)implementing RtW coordination in a country-specific setting, using Finland as an example. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature search and online survey with two groups of experts to compare interventions included in the Cochrane review to Finnish RtW practice using content analysis methods. We applied the evidence-to-decision (EtD) framework criteria to draw conclusions about (de-)implementing RtW coordination in Finland, including benefits, harms and costs of the intervention compared to usual care. RESULTS: We included seven documents from the literature search and received data from 10 of 42 survey participants. RtW coordination included, both in Finland and in the review, at least one face-to-face meeting between the physician and the worker, a workers' needs assessment, and an individual RtW plan and its implementation. Usual care focuses on medical treatment and may include general RtW advice. RtW coordination would be cost-saving if it decreases sick leave with at least 2 days compared to usual care. The evidence in the Cochrane review was mainly of low certainty, and the effect sizes had relatively wide confidence intervals. Only a new, high-quality and large randomized controlled trial (RCT) can decrease the current uncertainty, but this is unlikely to happen. The EtD framework did not provide arguments for further implementation or for de-implementation of the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions evaluated in the Cochrane review are similar to RtW coordination and usual care interventions in Finland. Considering all EtD framework criteria, including certainty of the evidence and costs, de-implementation of RtW coordination interventions in Finland seems unnecessary. Better evidence about the costs and stakeholders' values regarding RtW coordination is needed to improve decision-making.

Quality of reporting and risk of bias: a review of randomised trials in occupational health.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the reporting quality of randomisation and allocation methods in occupational health and safety (OHS) trials in relation to Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) requirements of journals, risk of bias (RoB) and publication year. METHODS: We systematically searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in PubMed between 2010 and May 2019 in 18 OHS journals. We measured reporting quality as percentage compliance with the CONSORT 2010 checklist (items 8-10) and RoB with the ROB V.2.0 tool (first domain). We tested the mean difference (MD) in % in reporting quality between CONSORT-requiring and non-requiring journals, trials with low, some concern and high RoB and publications before and after 2015. RESULTS: In 135 articles reporting on 129 RCTs, average reporting quality was at 37.4% compliance (95% CI 31.9% to 43.0%), with 10% of articles reaching 100% compliance. Reporting quality was significantly better in CONSORT-requiring journals than non-requiring journals (MD 31.0% (95% CI 21.4% to 40.7%)), for studies at low RoB than high RoB (MD 33.1% (95% CI 16.1% to 50.2%)) and with RoB of some concern (MD 39.8% (95% CI 30.0% to 49.7%)). Reporting quality did not improve over time (MD -5.7% (95% CI -16.8% to 5.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Articles in CONSORT-requiring journals and of low RoB studies show better reporting quality. Low reporting quality is linked to unclear RoB judgements (some concern). Reporting quality did not improve over the last 10 years and CONSORT is insufficiently implemented. Concerted efforts by editors and authors are needed to improve CONSORT implementation.

Equipo de protección individual para la prevención de enfermedades altamente infecciosas debidas a la exposición a fluidos corporales contaminados en el personal sanitario / Personal protective equipment for preventing highly infectious diseases due to exposure to contaminated body fluids in healthcare staff

FUNDAMENTO: El personal sanitario que trata a pacientes con infecciones como el coronavirus (COVID-19) corre el riesgo de infectarse. Este utiliza equipos de protección individual (EPI) para protegerse de las gotas de la tos, los estornudos u otros fluidos corporales de los pacientes infectados y de las superficies contaminadas que puedan infectarlos. El EPI puede incluir delantales, batas o monos (un traje de una sola pieza), guantes, máscaras y equipo de respiración (respiradores) y gafas protectoras. El EPI debe ser puesto correctamente; puede ser incómodo de usar, y los trabajadores de la salud pueden contaminarse cuando se lo quitan. Algunos se han adaptado, por ejemplo, añadiendo pestañas para facilitar su retirada. Las organizaciones como los Centros para el Control y la Prevención de Enfermedades (CDC) de Estados Unidos ofrecen orientación sobre el procedimiento correcto para ponerse y quitarse el EPI. Esta es la actualización de 2020 de una revisión publicada por primera vez en 2016 y actualizada previamente en 2019. ¿QUÉ SE QUERÍA DESCUBRIR?: Se quería saber qué tipo de EPI o combinación de EPI confiere a los trabajadores de la salud la mejor protección; si la modificación del EPI para facilitar su retirada es efectiva; si seguir la guía para retirar el EPI reduce la contaminación; y si el entrenamiento reduce la contaminación. ¿QUÉ SE ENCONTRÓ?: Se encontraron 24 estudios relevantes con 2.278 participantes que evaluaron los tipos de EPI, EPI modificado, procedimientos para poner y quitar el EPI y tipos de entrenamiento. Dieciocho de los estudios no evaluaron a los trabajadores sanitarios que trataban a pacientes infectados, sino que simularon el efecto de la exposición a la infección mediante el uso de marcadores fluorescentes o virus o bacterias inofensivos. La mayoría de los estudios fueron pequeños, y solo 1 o 2 estudios abordaron cada una de las preguntas. TIPOS DE EPI: Cubrir más el cuerpo lleva a una mejor protección. Sin embargo, como esto suele estar asociado con una mayor dificultad para ponerse y quitarse el EPI y una menor comodidad, puede conducir a una mayor contaminación. Los monos son los EPI más difíciles de quitar, pero pueden ofrecer la mejor protección, seguida de los vestidos largos, batas y delantales. Los respiradores que se usan con los monos pueden proteger mejor que una máscara que se usa con una bata, pero son más difíciles de poner. Los tipos de EPI más transpirables pueden conducir a niveles similares de contaminación, pero son más cómodos. La contaminación fue común en la mitad de los estudios a pesar de la mejora del EPI. EPI MODIFICADO: Las batas que tienen guantes adheridos al puño, de manera que los guantes y la bata se quitan juntos y cubren la zona de la muñeca, y las batas que se modifican para que se ajusten bien al cuello pueden reducir la contaminación. Además, añadir lengüetas a los guantes y mascarillas también puede conducir a una menor contaminación. Sin embargo, un estudio no encontró menos errores al ponerse o quitarse las batas modificadas. ORIENTACIÓN SOBRE EL USO DEL EPI: Seguir la guía de los CDC para la eliminación del delantal o la bata, o cualquier instrucción para eliminar el EPI en comparación con las propias preferencias de un individuo, pueden reducir la autocontaminación. Quitarse la bata y los guantes en un solo paso, usar 2 pares de guantes y limpiar los guantes con lejía o desinfectante (pero no con alcohol) también puede reducir la contaminación. ENTRENAMIENTO DE LOS USUARIOS: El entrenamiento en persona, la simulación por computadora y el entrenamiento por video condujeron a menos errores en la extracción del EPI, tanto un entrenamiento entregado como material escrito solamente o una conferencia tradicional. CERTEZA DE LA EVIDENCIA: La certeza (confianza) en las evidencias es limitada porque los estudios simularon la infección (es decir, no fue real), y tuvieron un número de participantes pequeño. ¿QUÉ FALTA DESCUBRIR?: No hubo estudios que investigaran las gafas o las pantallas faciales. No queda claro cuál es la mejor manera de quitarse los EPI después de su uso y el mejor tipo de entrenamiento a largo plazo. Los hospitales deben organizar más estudios, y los investigadores deben ponerse de acuerdo sobre la mejor manera de simular la exposición a un virus. En el futuro, los estudios de simulación deben tener al menos 60 participantes cada uno, y utilizar la exposición a un virus inofensivo para evaluar qué tipo y combinación de EPI protege más. Sería útil que los hospitales pudieran registrar el tipo de EPI utilizado por sus trabajadores para proporcionar información urgente de la vida real. FECHA DE LA BÚSQUEDA: Esta revisión incluye pruebas publicadas hasta el 20 de marzo de 2020

No disponible

Personal protective equipment for preventing highly infectious diseases due to exposure to contaminated body fluids in healthcare staff.

BACKGROUND: In epidemics of highly infectious diseases, such as Ebola, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), or coronavirus (COVID-19), healthcare workers (HCW) are at much greater risk of infection than the general population, due to their contact with patients' contaminated body fluids. Personal protective equipment (PPE) can reduce the risk by covering exposed body parts. It is unclear which type of PPE protects best, what is the best way to put PPE on (i.e. donning) or to remove PPE (i.e. doffing), and how to train HCWs to use PPE as instructed. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate which type of full-body PPE and which method of donning or doffing PPE have the least risk of contamination or infection for HCW, and which training methods increase compliance with PPE protocols. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL to 20 March 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all controlled studies that evaluated the effect of full-body PPE used by HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases, on the risk of infection, contamination, or noncompliance with protocols. We also included studies that compared the effect of various ways of donning or doffing PPE, and the effects of training on the same outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in included trials. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses were appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: Earlier versions of this review were published in 2016 and 2019. In this update, we included 24 studies with 2278 participants, of which 14 were randomised controlled trials (RCT), one was a quasi-RCT and nine had a non-randomised design. Eight studies compared types of PPE. Six studies evaluated adapted PPE. Eight studies compared donning and doffing processes and three studies evaluated types of training. Eighteen studies used simulated exposure with fluorescent markers or harmless microbes. In simulation studies, median contamination rates were 25% for the intervention and 67% for the control groups. Evidence for all outcomes is of very low certainty unless otherwise stated because it is based on one or two studies, the indirectness of the evidence in simulation studies and because of risk of bias. Types of PPE The use of a powered, air-purifying respirator with coverall may protect against the risk of contamination better than a N95 mask and gown (risk ratio (RR) 0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 0.43) but was more difficult to don (non-compliance: RR 7.5, 95% CI 1.81 to 31.1). In one RCT (59 participants) coveralls were more difficult to doff than isolation gowns (very low-certainty evidence). Gowns may protect better against contamination than aprons (small patches: mean difference (MD) -10.28, 95% CI -14.77 to -5.79). PPE made of more breathable material may lead to a similar number of spots on the trunk (MD 1.60, 95% CI -0.15 to 3.35) compared to more water-repellent material but may have greater user satisfaction (MD -0.46, 95% CI -0.84 to -0.08, scale of 1 to 5). According to three studies that tested more recently introduced full-body PPE ensembles, there may be no difference in contamination. Modified PPE versus standard PPE The following modifications to PPE design may lead to less contamination compared to standard PPE: sealed gown and glove combination (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.78), a better fitting gown around the neck, wrists and hands (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.55), a better cover of the gown-wrist interface (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.78, low-certainty evidence), added tabs to grab to facilitate doffing of masks (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.80) or gloves (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.31). Donning and doffing Using Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations for doffing may lead to less contamination compared to no guidance (small patches: MD -5.44, 95% CI -7.43 to -3.45). One-step removal of gloves and gown may lead to less bacterial contamination (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.77) but not to less fluorescent contamination (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.28) than separate removal. Double-gloving may lead to less viral or bacterial contamination compared to single gloving (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.66) but not to less fluorescent contamination (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.28). Additional spoken instruction may lead to fewer errors in doffing (MD -0.9, 95% CI -1.4 to -0.4) and to fewer contamination spots (MD -5, 95% CI -8.08 to -1.92). Extra sanitation of gloves before doffing with quaternary ammonium or bleach may decrease contamination, but not alcohol-based hand rub. Training The use of additional computer simulation may lead to fewer errors in doffing (MD -1.2, 95% CI -1.6 to -0.7). A video lecture on donning PPE may lead to better skills scores (MD 30.70, 95% CI 20.14 to 41.26) than a traditional lecture. Face-to-face instruction may reduce noncompliance with doffing guidance more (odds ratio 0.45, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.98) than providing folders or videos only. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found low- to very low-certainty evidence that covering more parts of the body leads to better protection but usually comes at the cost of more difficult donning or doffing and less user comfort. More breathable types of PPE may lead to similar contamination but may have greater user satisfaction. Modifications to PPE design, such as tabs to grab, may decrease the risk of contamination. For donning and doffing procedures, following CDC doffing guidance, a one-step glove and gown removal, double-gloving, spoken instructions during doffing, and using glove disinfection may reduce contamination and increase compliance. Face-to-face training in PPE use may reduce errors more than folder-based training. We still need RCTs of training with long-term follow-up. We need simulation studies with more participants to find out which combinations of PPE and which doffing procedure protects best. Consensus on simulation of exposure and assessment of outcome is urgently needed. We also need more real-life evidence. Therefore, the use of PPE of HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases should be registered and the HCW should be prospectively followed for their risk of infection.

Cochrane method for systematic review and meta-analysis of interventions to prevent occupational noise-induced hearing loss - abridged.

PURPOSE: Assess the effect of non-pharmaceutical interventions at work on noise exposure or occupational hearing loss compared to no or alternative interventions. RESEARCH STRATEGIES: Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, OSHupdate, Cochrane Central and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) were searched. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized Controlled Trials (RCT), Controlled Before-After studies (CBA) and Interrupted Time-Series studies (ITS) evaluating engineering controls, administrative controls, personal hearing protection devices, and hearing surveillance were included. Case studies of engineering controls were collected. DATA ANALYSIS: Cochrane methods for systematic reviews, including meta-analysis, were followed. RESULTS: 29 studies were included. Stricter legislation can reduce noise levels by 4.5 dB(A) (very low-quality evidence). Engineering controls can immediately reduce noise (107 cases). Eleven RCTs and CBA studies (3725 participants) were evaluated through Hearing Protection Devices (HPDs). Training of earplug insertion reduces noise exposure at short term follow-up (moderate quality evidence). Earmuffs might perform better than earplugs in high noise levels but worse in low noise levels (very low-quality evidence). HPDs might reduce hearing loss at very long-term follow-up (very low-quality evidence). Seventeen studies (84028 participants) evaluated hearing loss prevention programs. Better use of HPDs might reduce hearing loss but other components not (very low-quality evidence). CONCLUSION: Hearing loss prevention and interventions modestly reduce noise exposure and hearing loss. Better quality studies and better implementation of noise control measures and HPDs is needed.

Personal protective equipment for preventing highly infectious diseases due to exposure to contaminated body fluids in healthcare staff.

BACKGROUND: In epidemics of highly infectious diseases, such as Ebola, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), or coronavirus (COVID-19), healthcare workers (HCW) are at much greater risk of infection than the general population, due to their contact with patients' contaminated body fluids. Personal protective equipment (PPE) can reduce the risk by covering exposed body parts. It is unclear which type of PPE protects best, what is the best way to put PPE on (i.e. donning) or to remove PPE (i.e. doffing), and how to train HCWs to use PPE as instructed. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate which type of full-body PPE and which method of donning or doffing PPE have the least risk of contamination or infection for HCW, and which training methods increase compliance with PPE protocols. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL to 20 March 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all controlled studies that evaluated the effect of full-body PPE used by HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases, on the risk of infection, contamination, or noncompliance with protocols. We also included studies that compared the effect of various ways of donning or doffing PPE, and the effects of training on the same outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in included trials. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses were appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: Earlier versions of this review were published in 2016 and 2019. In this update, we included 24 studies with 2278 participants, of which 14 were randomised controlled trials (RCT), one was a quasi-RCT and nine had a non-randomised design. Eight studies compared types of PPE. Six studies evaluated adapted PPE. Eight studies compared donning and doffing processes and three studies evaluated types of training. Eighteen studies used simulated exposure with fluorescent markers or harmless microbes. In simulation studies, median contamination rates were 25% for the intervention and 67% for the control groups. Evidence for all outcomes is of very low certainty unless otherwise stated because it is based on one or two studies, the indirectness of the evidence in simulation studies and because of risk of bias. Types of PPE The use of a powered, air-purifying respirator with coverall may protect against the risk of contamination better than a N95 mask and gown (risk ratio (RR) 0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 0.43) but was more difficult to don (non-compliance: RR 7.5, 95% CI 1.81 to 31.1). In one RCT (59 participants), people with a long gown had less contamination than those with a coverall, and coveralls were more difficult to doff (low-certainty evidence). Gowns may protect better against contamination than aprons (small patches: mean difference (MD) -10.28, 95% CI -14.77 to -5.79). PPE made of more breathable material may lead to a similar number of spots on the trunk (MD 1.60, 95% CI -0.15 to 3.35) compared to more water-repellent material but may have greater user satisfaction (MD -0.46, 95% CI -0.84 to -0.08, scale of 1 to 5). Modified PPE versus standard PPE The following modifications to PPE design may lead to less contamination compared to standard PPE: sealed gown and glove combination (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.78), a better fitting gown around the neck, wrists and hands (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.55), a better cover of the gown-wrist interface (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.78, low-certainty evidence), added tabs to grab to facilitate doffing of masks (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.80) or gloves (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.31). Donning and doffing Using Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations for doffing may lead to less contamination compared to no guidance (small patches: MD -5.44, 95% CI -7.43 to -3.45). One-step removal of gloves and gown may lead to less bacterial contamination (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.77) but not to less fluorescent contamination (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.28) than separate removal. Double-gloving may lead to less viral or bacterial contamination compared to single gloving (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.66) but not to less fluorescent contamination (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.28). Additional spoken instruction may lead to fewer errors in doffing (MD -0.9, 95% CI -1.4 to -0.4) and to fewer contamination spots (MD -5, 95% CI -8.08 to -1.92). Extra sanitation of gloves before doffing with quaternary ammonium or bleach may decrease contamination, but not alcohol-based hand rub. Training The use of additional computer simulation may lead to fewer errors in doffing (MD -1.2, 95% CI -1.6 to -0.7). A video lecture on donning PPE may lead to better skills scores (MD 30.70, 95% CI 20.14 to 41.26) than a traditional lecture. Face-to-face instruction may reduce noncompliance with doffing guidance more (odds ratio 0.45, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.98) than providing folders or videos only. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found low- to very low-certainty evidence that covering more parts of the body leads to better protection but usually comes at the cost of more difficult donning or doffing and less user comfort, and may therefore even lead to more contamination. More breathable types of PPE may lead to similar contamination but may have greater user satisfaction. Modifications to PPE design, such as tabs to grab, may decrease the risk of contamination. For donning and doffing procedures, following CDC doffing guidance, a one-step glove and gown removal, double-gloving, spoken instructions during doffing, and using glove disinfection may reduce contamination and increase compliance. Face-to-face training in PPE use may reduce errors more than folder-based training. We still need RCTs of training with long-term follow-up. We need simulation studies with more participants to find out which combinations of PPE and which doffing procedure protects best. Consensus on simulation of exposure and assessment of outcome is urgently needed. We also need more real-life evidence. Therefore, the use of PPE of HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases should be registered and the HCW should be prospectively followed for their risk of infection.

Cochrane corner: interventions to prevent hearing loss caused by noise at work.

This Cochrane Corner features "Interventions to prevent hearing loss caused by noise at work", published in 2017. The aim of this Cochrane Review was to find out if hearing loss caused by noise at work is being prevented by current interventions. Tikka et al. identified 29 studies that studied the effect of preventive measures. One study evaluated legislation to reduce noise exposure, eleven studies evaluated effects of personal hearing protection devices and 17 studies evaluated effects of hearing loss prevention programmes (HLPPs). There was some very low-quality evidence that implementation of stricter legislation can reduce noise levels in workplaces and moderate-quality evidence that training of proper insertion of earplugs significantly reduces noise exposure at short-term follow-up. This Cochrane review has identified specific strategies that have shown effectiveness in reducing workplace noise, such as the implementation of stricter legislation and the need for training in the proper use of earplugs and earmuffs to reduce noise exposure to safe levels. The overall quality of evidence for the effectiveness of HLPPs in preventing hearing loss was very low, there was limited follow-up of participants receiving training for insertion of earplugs and no controlled studies examining engineering controls to reduce workplace noise.

Cochrane method for systematic review and meta-analysis of interventions to prevent occupational noise-induced hearing loss - abridged / Revisão sistemática e metanálise Cochrane de intervenções para prevenção de perda auditiva ocupacional induzida por ruído - abreviada

ABSTRACT Purpose Assess the effect of non-pharmaceutical interventions at work on noise exposure or occupational hearing loss compared to no or alternative interventions. Research strategies Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, OSHupdate, Cochrane Central and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) were searched. Selection criteria Randomized Controlled Trials (RCT), Controlled Before-After studies (CBA) and Interrupted Time-Series studies (ITS) evaluating engineering controls, administrative controls, personal hearing protection devices, and hearing surveillance were included. Case studies of engineering controls were collected. Data analysis Cochrane methods for systematic reviews, including meta-analysis, were followed. Results 29 studies were included. Stricter legislation can reduce noise levels by 4.5 dB(A) (very low-quality evidence). Engineering controls can immediately reduce noise (107 cases). Eleven RCTs and CBA studies (3725 participants) were evaluated through Hearing Protection Devices (HPDs). Training of earplug insertion reduces noise exposure at short term follow-up (moderate quality evidence). Earmuffs might perform better than earplugs in high noise levels but worse in low noise levels (very low-quality evidence). HPDs might reduce hearing loss at very long-term follow-up (very low-quality evidence). Seventeen studies (84028 participants) evaluated hearing loss prevention programs. Better use of HPDs might reduce hearing loss but other components not (very low-quality evidence). Conclusion Hearing loss prevention and interventions modestly reduce noise exposure and hearing loss. Better quality studies and better implementation of noise control measures and HPDs is needed.

RESUMO Objetivo Avaliar o efeito de intervenções no trabalho sobre a exposição ao ruído ou a perda auditiva em comparação com ausência ou intervenções alternativas. Estratégia de pesquisa Buscas em Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, OSHupdate, Cochrane Central e CINAHL. Critérios de seleção Incluídos ensaios clínicos randomizados (ECR), estudos controlados pré/pós-intervenção (ECPPI) e estudos de séries temporais interrompidas (SIT) avaliando controles de engenharia, administrativos, equipamentos de proteção auditiva (EPAs) e vigilância auditiva. Coletados estudos de caso de engenharia. Análise dos dados Cochrane para revisões sistemáticas, incluindo metanálise. Resultados Foram incluídos 29 estudos. Legislação mais rigorosa pode reduzir níveis de ruído em 4,5 dB(A) (evidência de qualidade muito baixa). Controles de engenharia podem reduzir imediatamente o ruído (107 casos). Onze ECR e ECPPI (3.725 participantes) avaliaram EPAs. Treinamento para inserção do EPA reduz a exposição ao ruído no acompanhamento de curto prazo (evidência de qualidade moderada). Protetores tipo concha podem ter desempenho melhor do que protetores de inserção em níveis altos de ruído, mas piores em níveis mais baixos (evidência de qualidade muito baixa). EPAs podem reduzir a perda auditiva no acompanhamento de muito longo prazo (evidência de qualidade muito baixa). Dezessete estudos (84.028 participantes) avaliaram programas de prevenção de perdas auditivas. Um melhor uso do EPA pode reduzir a perda auditiva, mas outros componentes não (evidência de qualidade muito baixa). Conclusão As intervenções para prevenção da perda auditiva reduzem modestamente a exposição ao ruído e a perda auditiva. Estudos de melhor qualidade e melhor implementação de medidas de controle de ruído e EPA são necessários.

Personal protective equipment for preventing highly infectious diseases due to exposure to contaminated body fluids in healthcare staff.

BACKGROUND: In epidemics of highly infectious diseases, such as Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) or Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), healthcare workers (HCW) are at much greater risk of infection than the general population, due to their contact with patients' contaminated body fluids. Contact precautions by means of personal protective equipment (PPE) can reduce the risk. It is unclear which type of PPE protects best, what is the best way to remove PPE, and how to make sure HCW use PPE as instructed. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate which type of full body PPE and which method of donning or doffing PPE have the least risk of self-contamination or infection for HCW, and which training methods increase compliance with PPE protocols. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE (PubMed up to 15 July 2018), Cochrane Central Register of Trials (CENTRAL up to 18 June 2019), Scopus (Scopus 18 June 2019), CINAHL (EBSCOhost 31 July 2018), and OSH-Update (up to 31 December 2018). We also screened reference lists of included trials and relevant reviews, and contacted NGOs and manufacturers of PPE. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all controlled studies that compared the effects of PPE used by HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases with serious consequences, such as Ebola or SARS, on the risk of infection, contamination, or noncompliance with protocols. This included studies that used simulated contamination with fluorescent markers or a non-pathogenic virus.We also included studies that compared the effect of various ways of donning or doffing PPE, and the effects of training in PPE use on the same outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias in included trials. We planned to perform meta-analyses but did not find sufficiently similar studies to combine their results. MAIN RESULTS: We included 17 studies with 1950 participants evaluating 21 interventions. Ten studies are Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs), one is a quasi RCT and six have a non-randomised controlled design. Two studies are awaiting assessment.Ten studies compared types of PPE but only six of these reported sufficient data. Six studies compared different types of donning and doffing and three studies evaluated different types of training. Fifteen studies used simulated exposure with fluorescent markers or harmless viruses. In simulation studies, contamination rates varied from 10% to 100% of participants for all types of PPE. In one study HCW were exposed to Ebola and in another to SARS.Evidence for all outcomes is based on single studies and is very low quality.Different types of PPEPPE made of more breathable material may not lead to more contamination spots on the trunk (Mean Difference (MD) 1.60 (95% Confidence Interval (CI) -0.15 to 3.35) than more water repellent material but may have greater user satisfaction (MD -0.46; 95% CI -0.84 to -0.08, scale of 1 to 5).Gowns may protect better against contamination than aprons (MD large patches -1.36 95% CI -1.78 to -0.94).The use of a powered air-purifying respirator may protect better than a simple ensemble of PPE without such respirator (Relative Risk (RR) 0.27; 95% CI 0.17 to 0.43).Five different PPE ensembles (such as gown vs. coverall, boots with or without covers, hood vs. cap, length and number of gloves) were evaluated in one study, but there were no event data available for compared groups.Alterations to PPE design may lead to less contamination such as added tabs to grab masks (RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.14 to 0.80) or gloves (RR 0.22 95% CI 0.15 to 0.31), a sealed gown and glove combination (RR 0.27; 95% CI 0.09 to 0.78), or a better fitting gown around the neck, wrists and hands (RR 0.08; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.55) compared to standard PPE.Different methods of donning and doffing proceduresDouble gloving may lead to less contamination compared to single gloving (RR 0.36; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.78).Following CDC recommendations for doffing may lead to less contamination compared to no guidance (MD small patches -5.44; 95% CI -7.43 to -3.45).Alcohol-based hand rub used during the doffing process may not lead to less contamination than the use of a hypochlorite based solution (MD 4.00; 95% CI 0.47 to 34.24).Additional spoken instruction may lead to fewer errors in doffing (MD -0.9, 95% CI -1.4 to -0.4).Different types of trainingThe use of additional computer simulation may lead to fewer errors in doffing (MD -1.2, 95% CI -1.6 to -0.7).A video lecture on donning PPE may lead to better skills scores (MD 30.70; 95% CI 20.14,41.26) than a traditional lecture.Face to face instruction may reduce noncompliance with doffing guidance more (OR 0.45; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.98) than providing folders or videos only.There were no studies on effects of training in the long term or on resource use.The quality of the evidence is very low for all comparisons because of high risk of bias in all studies, indirectness of evidence, and small numbers of participants. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found very low quality evidence that more breathable types of PPE may not lead to more contamination, but may have greater user satisfaction. Alterations to PPE, such as tabs to grab may decrease contamination. Double gloving, following CDC doffing guidance, and spoken instructions during doffing may reduce contamination and increase compliance. Face-to-face training in PPE use may reduce errors more than video or folder based training. Because data come from single small studies with high risk of bias, we are uncertain about the estimates of effects.We still need randomised controlled trials to find out which training works best in the long term. We need better simulation studies conducted with several dozen participants to find out which PPE protects best, and what is the safest way to remove PPE. Consensus on the best way to conduct simulation of exposure and assessment of outcome is urgently needed. HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases should have their use of PPE registered and should be prospectively followed for their risk of infection in the field.

Optical correction of refractive error for preventing and treating eye symptoms in computer users.

BACKGROUND: Computer users frequently complain about problems with seeing and functioning of the eyes. Asthenopia is a term generally used to describe symptoms related to (prolonged) use of the eyes like ocular fatigue, headache, pain or aching around the eyes, and burning and itchiness of the eyelids. The prevalence of asthenopia during or after work on a computer ranges from 46.3% to 68.5%. Uncorrected or under-corrected refractive error can contribute to the development of asthenopia. A refractive error is an error in the focusing of light by the eye and can lead to reduced visual acuity. There are various possibilities for optical correction of refractive errors including eyeglasses, contact lenses and refractive surgery. OBJECTIVES: To examine the evidence on the effectiveness, safety and applicability of optical correction of refractive error for reducing and preventing eye symptoms in computer users. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); PubMed; Embase; Web of Science; and OSH update, all to 20 December 2017. Additionally, we searched trial registries and checked references of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised trials of interventions evaluating optical correction for computer workers with refractive error for preventing or treating asthenopia and their effect on health related quality of life. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed study eligibility and risk of bias, and extracted data. Where appropriate, we combined studies in a meta-analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We included eight studies with 381 participants. Three were parallel group RCTs, three were cross-over RCTs and two were quasi-randomised cross-over trials. All studies evaluated eyeglasses, there were no studies that evaluated contact lenses or surgery. Seven studies evaluated computer glasses with at least one focal area for the distance of the computer screen with or without additional focal areas in presbyopic persons. Six studies compared computer glasses to other types of glasses; and one study compared them to an ergonomic workplace assessment. The eighth study compared optimal correction of refractive error with the actual spectacle correction in use. Two studies evaluated computer glasses in persons with asthenopia but for the others the glasses were offered to all workers regardless of symptoms. The risk of bias was unclear in five, high in two and low in one study. Asthenopia was measured as eyestrain or a summary score of symptoms but there were no studies on health-related quality of life. Adverse events were measured as headache, nausea or dizziness. Median asthenopia scores at baseline were about 30% of the maximum possible score.Progressive computer glasses versus monofocal glassesOne study found no considerable difference in asthenopia between various progressive computer glasses and monofocal computer glasses after one-year follow-up (mean difference (MD) change scores 0.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.0 to 5.4 on a 100 mm VAS scale, low quality evidence). For headache the results were in favour of progressive glasses.Progressive computer glasses with an intermediate focus in the upper part of the glasses versus other glassesIn two studies progressive computer glasses with intermediate focus led to a small decrease in asthenopia symptoms (SMD -0.49, 95% CI -0.75 to -0.23, low-quality evidence) but not in headache score in the short-term compared to general purpose progressive glasses. There were similar small decreases in dizziness. At medium term follow-up, in one study the effect size was not statistically significant (SMD -0.64, 95% CI -1.40 to 0.12). The study did not assess adverse events.Another study found no considerable difference in asthenopia between progressive computer glasses and monofocal computer glasses after one-year follow-up (MD change scores 1.44, 95% CI -6.95 to 9.83 on a 100 mm VAS scale, very low quality evidence). For headache the results were inconsistent.Progressive computer glasses with far-distance focus in the upper part of the glasses versus other glassesOne study found no considerable difference in number of persons with asthenopia between progressive computer glasses with far-distance focus and bifocal computer glasses after four weeks' follow-up (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.40 to 2.50, very low quality evidence). The number of persons with headache, nausea and dizziness was also not different between groups.Another study found no considerable difference in asthenopia between progressive computer glasses with far-distance focus and monofocal computer glasses after one-year follow-up (MD change scores -1.79, 95% CI -11.60 to 8.02 on a 100 mm VAS scale, very low quality evidence). The effects on headaches were inconsistent.One study found no difference between progressive far-distance focus computer glasses and trifocal glasses in effect on eyestrain severity (MD -0.50, 95% CI -1.07 to 0.07, very low quality evidence) or on eyestrain frequency (MD -0.75, 95% CI -1.61 to 0.11, very low quality evidence).Progressive computer glasses versus ergonomic assessment with habitual (computer) glassesOne study found that computer glasses optimised for individual needs reduced asthenopia sum score more than an ergonomic assessment and habitual (computer) glasses (MD -8.9, 95% CI -16.47 to -1.33, scale 0 to 140, very low quality evidence) but there was no effect on the frequency of eyestrain (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.38 to 3.11, very low quality evidence).We rated the quality of the evidence as low or very low due to risk of bias in the included studies, inconsistency in the results and imprecision. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is low to very low quality evidence that providing computer users with progressive computer glasses does not lead to a considerable decrease in problems with the eyes or headaches compared to other computer glasses. Progressive computer glasses might be slightly better than progressive glasses for daily use in the short term but not in the intermediate term and there is no data on long-term follow-up. The quality of the evidence is low or very low and therefore we are uncertain about this conclusion. Larger studies with several hundreds of participants are needed with proper randomisation, validated outcome measurement methods, and longer follow-up of at least one year to improve the quality of the evidence.

Interventions to prevent occupational noise-induced hearing loss.

BACKGROUND: This is the second update of a Cochrane Review originally published in 2009. Millions of workers worldwide are exposed to noise levels that increase their risk of hearing disorders. There is uncertainty about the effectiveness of hearing loss prevention interventions. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions for preventing occupational noise exposure or occupational hearing loss compared to no intervention or alternative interventions. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the CENTRAL; PubMed; Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; BIOSIS Previews; Cambridge Scientific Abstracts; and OSH UPDATE to 3 October 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCT), controlled before-after studies (CBA) and interrupted time-series (ITS) of non-clinical interventions under field conditions among workers to prevent or reduce noise exposure and hearing loss. We also collected uncontrolled case studies of engineering controls about the effect on noise exposure. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed study eligibility and risk of bias and extracted data. We categorised interventions as engineering controls, administrative controls, personal hearing protection devices, and hearing surveillance. MAIN RESULTS: We included 29 studies. One study evaluated legislation to reduce noise exposure in a 12-year time-series analysis but there were no controlled studies on engineering controls for noise exposure. Eleven studies with 3725 participants evaluated effects of personal hearing protection devices and 17 studies with 84,028 participants evaluated effects of hearing loss prevention programmes (HLPPs). Effects on noise exposure Engineering interventions following legislationOne ITS study found that new legislation in the mining industry reduced the median personal noise exposure dose in underground coal mining by 27.7 percentage points (95% confidence interval (CI) -36.1 to -19.3 percentage points) immediately after the implementation of stricter legislation. This roughly translates to a 4.5 dB(A) decrease in noise level. The intervention was associated with a favourable but statistically non-significant downward trend in time of the noise dose of -2.1 percentage points per year (95% CI -4.9 to 0.7, 4 year follow-up, very low-quality evidence). Engineering intervention case studiesWe found 12 studies that described 107 uncontrolled case studies of immediate reductions in noise levels of machinery ranging from 11.1 to 19.7 dB(A) as a result of purchasing new equipment, segregating noise sources or installing panels or curtains around sources. However, the studies lacked long-term follow-up and dose measurements of workers, and we did not use these studies for our conclusions. Hearing protection devicesIn general hearing protection devices reduced noise exposure on average by about 20 dB(A) in one RCT and three CBAs (57 participants, low-quality evidence). Two RCTs showed that, with instructions for insertion, the attenuation of noise by earplugs was 8.59 dB better (95% CI 6.92 dB to 10.25 dB) compared to no instruction (2 RCTs, 140 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Administrative controls: information and noise exposure feedbackOn-site training sessions did not have an effect on personal noise-exposure levels compared to information only in one cluster-RCT after four months' follow-up (mean difference (MD) 0.14 dB; 95% CI -2.66 to 2.38). Another arm of the same study found that personal noise exposure information had no effect on noise levels (MD 0.30 dB(A), 95% CI -2.31 to 2.91) compared to no such information (176 participants, low-quality evidence). Effects on hearing loss Hearing protection devicesIn two studies the authors compared the effect of different devices on temporary threshold shifts at short-term follow-up but reported insufficient data for analysis. In two CBA studies the authors found no difference in hearing loss from noise exposure above 89 dB(A) between muffs and earplugs at long-term follow-up (OR 0.8, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.03 ), very low-quality evidence). Authors of another CBA study found that wearing hearing protection more often resulted in less hearing loss at very long-term follow-up (very low-quality evidence). Combination of interventions: hearing loss prevention programmesOne cluster-RCT found no difference in hearing loss at three- or 16-year follow-up between an intensive HLPP for agricultural students and audiometry only. One CBA study found no reduction of the rate of hearing loss (MD -0.82 dB per year (95% CI -1.86 to 0.22) for a HLPP that provided regular personal noise exposure information compared to a programme without this information.There was very-low-quality evidence in four very long-term studies, that better use of hearing protection devices as part of a HLPP decreased the risk of hearing loss compared to less well used hearing protection in HLPPs (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.69). Other aspects of the HLPP such as training and education of workers or engineering controls did not show a similar effect.In three long-term CBA studies, workers in a HLPP had a statistically non-significant 1.8 dB (95% CI -0.6 to 4.2) greater hearing loss at 4 kHz than non-exposed workers and the confidence interval includes the 4.2 dB which is the level of hearing loss resulting from 5 years of exposure to 85 dB(A). In addition, of three other CBA studies that could not be included in the meta-analysis, two showed an increased risk of hearing loss in spite of the protection of a HLPP compared to non-exposed workers and one CBA did not. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is very low-quality evidence that implementation of stricter legislation can reduce noise levels in workplaces. Controlled studies of other engineering control interventions in the field have not been conducted. There is moderate-quality evidence that training of proper insertion of earplugs significantly reduces noise exposure at short-term follow-up but long-term follow-up is still needed.There is very low-quality evidence that the better use of hearing protection devices as part of HLPPs reduces the risk of hearing loss, whereas for other programme components of HLPPs we did not find such an effect. The absence of conclusive evidence should not be interpreted as evidence of lack of effectiveness. Rather, it means that further research is very likely to have an important impact.