Question · asked by 1 review
Laminar air flow with HEPA filter vs Without laminar flow or filter: Reduction in level of contamination in aerosols (CFU per cubic feet/min/patient) using Andersen cascade sampler 20-30 cm from mouth
- Population
- People undergoing aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) in a dental setting
- Intervention
- Laminar air flow with HEPA filter
- Comparison
- Without laminar flow or filter
- Outcome
- Reduction in level of contamination in aerosols (CFU per cubic feet/min/patient) using Andersen cascade sampler 20-30 cm from mouth
It is very uncertain whether laminar air flow with HEPA filter changes reduction in level of contamination in aerosols (CFU per cubic… compared with without laminar flow or filter (very low certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Laminar air flow with HEPA filter vs Without laminar flow or filter Reduction in level of contamination in aerosols (CFU per cubic feet/min/patient) using Andersen cascade sampler 20-30 cm from mouth · People undergoing aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) in a dental setting It is very uncertain whether laminar air flow with HEPA filter changes reduction in level of contamination in aerosols (CFU per cubic… compared with without laminar flow or filter (very low certainty). Interventions to reduce contaminated aerosols produced during dental procedures for preventing infectious… (2020) · Cochrane All outcomes | MD -483.56 [-550.02, -417.10] | 1 study · 50 participants | Very low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interventions to reduce contaminated aerosols produced during dental procedures for preventing infectious diseases 2020 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2020-09 | Not listed | Not assessed |
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.