Background The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in severe shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE) necessary to protect front-line healthcare personnel. These shortages underscore the urgent need for simple, efficient, and inexpensive methods to decontaminate SARS-CoV-2-exposed PPE enabling safe reuse of masks and respirators. Efficient decontamination must be available not only in low-resourced settings, but also in well-resourced settings affected by PPE shortages. Methylene blue (MB) photochemical treatment, hitherto with many clinical applications including those used to inactivate virus in plasma, presents a novel approach for widely applicable PPE decontamination. Dry heat (DH) treatment is another potential low-cost decontamination method.Methods MB and light (MBL) and DH treatments were used to inactivate coronavirus on respirator and mask material. We tested three N95 filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs), two medical masks (MMs), and one cloth community mask (CM). FFR/MM/CM materials were inoculated with SARS-CoV-2 (a Betacoronavirus), murine hepatitis virus (MHV) (a Betacoronavirus), or porcine respiratory coronavirus (PRCV) (an Alphacoronavirus), and treated with 10 µM MB followed by 50,000 lux of broad-spectrum light or 12,500 lux of red light for 30 minutes, or with 75°C DH for 60 minutes. In parallel, we tested respirator and mask integrity using several standard methods and compared to the FDA-authorized vaporized hydrogen peroxide plus ozone (VHP+O3) decontamination method. Intact FFRs/MMs/CM were subjected to five cycles of decontamination (5CD) to assess integrity using International Standardization Organization (ISO), American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) International, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) test methods.Findings Overall, MBL robustly and consistently inactivated all three coronaviruses with at least a 4-log reduction. DH yielded similar results, with the exception of MHV, which was only reduced by 2-log after treatment. FFR/MM integrity was maintained for 5 cycles of MBL or DH treatment, whereas one FFR failed after 5 cycles of VHP+O3. Baseline performance for the CM was variable, but reduction of integrity was minimal.Interpretation Methylene blue with light and DH treatment decontaminated masks and respirators by inactivating three tested coronaviruses without compromising integrity through 5CD. MBL decontamination of masks is effective, low-cost and does not require specialized equipment, making it applicable in all-resource settings. These attractive features support the utilization and continued development of this novel PPE decontamination method.Competing Interest StatementAuthors Thomas S. Lendvay, James Chen are Co-Founders and equity owners of Singletto, Inc. (Seattle, WA, USA) Authors Yi Cui and Steven Chu are Co-Founders and equity owners of 4C Air, Inc. (Sunnyvale, CA)Funding StatementThis study was funded by Open Philanthropy; Amazon Inc./University of Washington Catalyst Award; University of Liege (Belgium) and the Walloon Region, Belgium; Li Ka Shing Institute; Alberta Health Services; and an Anonymous donor to the University of Washington, Department of Urology.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Stanford University and Alberta Health Services/University of Calgary were exempt from IRB as the human fit testing was considered Quality Improvement. ERB for clinical specimen use: A clinical saliva specimen with a SARS-CoV-2 was provided by Dr. John Conly from Calgary, Alberta with Calgary ERB approval (ID# Pro00099761).All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective inte ventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesData will be freely shared post publication on reasonable request by contacting the corresponding author of the study.

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.

BACKGROUND: Fluid leakage through the glove-protective clothing interface is an area of concern for many healthcare personnel, including emergency medical service providers, who may wear coveralls to protect themselves from multiple types of hazards. There is currently no established standard test method to specifically evaluate the barrier performance of the glove-protective clothing interface region for any personal protective equipment ensemble. OBJECTIVE: This study quantifies the fluid leakage at the coverall and glove interface using single and double gloving. METHODS: A robotic arm, which can simulate upper extremity movements of healthcare personnel, was used to test five coverall models and an extended examination glove model in single and double glove conditions. RESULTS: The results show that there was a significant difference in fluid leakage amounts between some of the coverall models and the number of glove layers studied. Findings also highlight that there is a high correlation between basis weight and stiffness of the coverall fabrics and the fluid leakage amounts. CONCLUSIONS: These results underline that coverall constructed from thin and less stiff fabrics can result in lower fluid leakage levels. Also, there was no significant difference in fluid leakage amounts between single and double gloves when tested with each of the coverall models, with the exception of the coveralls with the highest basis weight and stiffness.

BACKGROUND: Isolation gowns are recommended to protect healthcare personnel (HCP), patients, and visitors from transfer of microorganisms and body fluids in patient isolation situations. Standards provide limited information about barrier performance of isolation gowns for possible exposure scenarios. One of the most vulnerable areas of the personal protective equipment (PPE) ensemble is considered the glove-gown interface. However, current classification standards do not consider the interface regions of the PPE system while assessing the level of protection. The purpose of this study was to quantitatively evaluate the fluid leakage through the glove-gown interface by simulating exposures and HCP arm movements in patient care. METHODS: We tested fluid leakage of two examination gloves with different cuff lengths and seven isolation gown models designed with varying levels of barrier resistance and multiple cuff types. RESULTS: Our results demonstrated that leakage through the glove-gown interface depends on multiple factors, including glove cuff length and gown cuff design. Gowns with the thumb loop design provided better protection than the elastic cuff design, and the elastic cuff design provided better protection compared to the knit cuff design for a given AAMI PB70 level. More importantly, a substantial penetration through gown fabrics was observed. CONCLUSION: This research identifies a need to develop a standardized method to evaluate leakage at the glove-gown interface to improve worker protection.

OBJECTIVE: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE) underscoring the urgent need for simple, efficient, and inexpensive methods to decontaminate SARS-CoV-2-exposed masks and respirators. We hypothesized that methylene blue (MB) photochemical treatment, which has various clinical applications, could decontaminate PPE contaminated with coronavirus. DESIGN: The two arms of the study included: 1) PPE inoculation with coronaviruses followed by MB with light (MBL) decontamination treatment, and 2) PPE treatment with MBL for 5 cycles of decontamination (5CD) to determine maintenance of PPE performance. METHODS: MBL treatment was used to inactivate coronaviruses on three N95 filtering facepiece respirator (FFR) and two medical mask (MM) models. We inoculated FFR and MM materials with three coronaviruses, including SARS-CoV-2, and treated with 10 µM MB and exposed to 50,000 lux of white light or 12,500 lux of red light for 30 minutes. In parallel, integrity was assessed after 5CD using multiple US and international test methods and compared to the FDA-authorized vaporized hydrogen peroxide plus ozone (VHP+O3) decontamination method. RESULTS: Overall, MBL robustly and consistently inactivated all three coronaviruses with 99.8 - to >99.9% virus inactivation across all FFRs and MMs tested. FFR and MM integrity was maintained after 5 cycles of MBL treatment, whereas one FFR model failed after 5 cycles of VHP+O3. CONCLUSIONS: MBL treatment decontaminated respirators and masks by inactivating three tested coronaviruses without compromising integrity through 5CD. MBL decontamination is effective, low-cost and does not require specialized equipment, making it applicable in all-resource settings.

Isolation gowns are one of the crucial pieces of personal protective equipment (PPE) to prevent the migration of microorganisms and body fluids from patients to healthcare personnel and vice versa. Underperforming isolation gowns in terms of fluid resistance, could potentially put lives in danger. Wearing multiple layers of isolation gowns could theoretically increase the fluid penetration resistance. Extraordinary circumstances such as epidemics/pandemics and product recalls, bring extra burden on the health institutions in terms of PPE availability. Thus, shortages could occur, and PPE that provides an appropriate level of protection might not be available. Therefore, wearing multiple layers of lower barrier level gowns could be assumed as a solution. This study investigates if two-layer lower barrier level isolation gowns meet the barrier effectiveness requirements of a single higher barrier level isolation gown. Three ANSI/AAMI PB70 Level 2 isolation gowns were tested based on the ANSI/AAMI PB70 standard, in single and double-layer configuration. Test results demonstrated that the double layer isolation gown configuration does not always provide equal fluid resistance as the higher level of isolation gown according to results from the AATCC 42 and AATCC 127 standard test methods, which are described in ANSI/AAMI PB70.

The COVID-19 pandemic is currently causing a severe disruption and shortage in the global supply chain of necessary personal protective equipment (e.g., N95 respirators). The U.S. CDC has recommended use of household cloth by the general public to make cloth face coverings as a method of source control. We evaluated the filtration properties of natural and synthetic materials using a modified procedure for N95 respirator approval. Common fabrics of cotton, polyester, nylon, and silk had filtration efficiency of 5-25%, polypropylene spunbond had filtration efficiency 6-10%, and paper-based products had filtration efficiency of 10-20%. An advantage of polypropylene spunbond is that it can be simply triboelectrically charged to enhance the filtration efficiency (from 6 to >10%) without any increase in pressure (stable overnight and in humid environments). Using the filtration quality factor, fabric microstructure, and charging ability, we are able to provide an assessment of suggested fabric materials for homemade facial coverings.

During epidemics and pandemics healthcare personnel (HCP) are on the front line of disease containment and mitigation. Personal protective equipment (PPE), such as NIOSH-approved N95 filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs), serve an important role in minimizing HCP risks and are in high demand during public health emergencies. Because PPE demand can exceed supply, various public health strategies have been developed to reduce the rate of PPE consumption as supply dwindles. Extended use and limited reuse of N95 FFRs are strategies advocated by many governmental agencies used to increase the number of times a device can be used. Increased use of respirators designed for reuse-such as powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs) and elastomeric half-mask and full facepiece air-purifying respirators- is another option designed to reduce the continuous need for new devices as the daily need for respirator use increases. Together, these strategies are designed to reduce the number of PPE units that must be discarded daily and, therefore, extend the longevity of available supply. The purpose of this paper is to theoretically estimate the impact of extended use and limited reuse strategies for N95 FFRs and the increased use of reusable respirator options on PPE consumed. The results suggest that a considerable reduction in PPE consumption would result from extended use and limited reuse of N95 FFRs and the increased use of respirators designed for reuse; however, the practical benefits must be balanced with the risks and economic costs. In addition, extended use and reuse strategies must be accompanied by proper procedures to reduce risk. The study is designed to support epidemic and pandemic PPE supply and demand planning efforts.

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.

BACKGROUND: Exposure to patients' blood/body fluids could be life-affecting, when providing care to patients with infectious diseases. Although the glove-gown interface is considered one of the weakest points of the protective ensemble system, there is a lack of research and existing standards do not provide much guidance on the strategies to minimize gaps between the gowns and gloves. Currently, there is no known standard test method to evaluate fluid leakage or assess performance improvements with new gowns/gloves. STUDY DESIGN: A novel test method with a robotic arm, which has the capability to simulate healthcare personnel's arm movements during fluid exposures, was developed to determine the leakage at the glove-gown interface. This paper explains the test method and investigates the effect of movement, exposure type, exposure duration, procedure duration, and existence of pressure on the amount of leaked fluid at the glove-gown interface. RESULTS: Test results suggest that, with the exception of procedure duration, all parameters significantly affected the amount of fluid leaked at the glove-gown interface. Leakage was higher for soaking when compared to spraying, increased as the exposure duration increased, and was greater with the application of pressure. CONCLUSIONS: The novel method developed in this study could be used by manufacturers of personal protective equipment to evaluate their products. Standard development organizations could adapt this test method in their specifications, testing standards, and guidelines.

BACKGROUND: In epidemics of highly infectious diseases, such as Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) or 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 HCWs use PPE as instructed. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate which type or component of full-body PPE and which method of donning or removing (doffing) PPE have the least risk of self-contamination or infection for HCWs, and which training methods most increase compliance with PPE protocols. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE (PubMed up to 8 January 2016), Cochrane Central Register of Trials (CENTRAL up to 20 January 2016), EMBASE (embase.com up to 8 January 2016), CINAHL (EBSCOhost up to 20 January 2016), and OSH-Update up to 8 January 2016. We also screened reference lists of included trials and relevant reviews, and contacted NGOs and manufacturers of PPE. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all eligible controlled studies that compared the effect of types or components of PPE in HCWs exposed to highly infectious diseases with serious consequences, such as EVD and SARS, on the risk of infection, contamination, or noncompliance with protocols. This included studies that simulated contamination with fluorescent markers or a non-pathogenic virus.We also included studies that compared the effect of various ways of donning or removing PPE, and the effects of various types 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 intended to perform meta-analyses but we did not find sufficiently similar studies to combine their results. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine studies with 1200 participants evaluating ten interventions. Of these, eight trials simulated the exposure with a fluorescent marker or virus or bacteria containing fluids. Five studies evaluated different types of PPE against each other but two did not report sufficient data. Another two studies compared different types of donning and doffing and three studies evaluated the effect of different types of training.None of the included studies reported a standardised classification of the protective properties against viral penetration of the PPE, and only one reported the brand of PPE used. None of the studies were conducted with HCWs exposed to EVD but in one study participants were exposed to SARS. Different types of PPE versus each otherIn simulation studies, contamination rates varied from 25% to 100% of participants for all types of PPE. In one study, PPE made of more breathable material did not lead to a statistically significantly different number of spots with contamination but did have greater user satisfaction (Mean Difference (MD) -0.46 (95% Confidence Interval (CI) -0.84 to -0.08, range 1 to 5, very low quality evidence). In another study, gowns protected better than aprons. In yet another study, the use of a powered air-purifying respirator protected better than a now outdated form of PPE. There were no studies on goggles versus face shields, on long- versus short-sleeved gloves, or on the use of taping PPE parts together. Different methods of donning and doffing procedures versus each otherTwo cross-over simulation studies (one RCT, one CCT) compared different methods for donning and doffing against each other. Double gloving led to less contamination compared to single gloving (Relative Risk (RR) 0.36; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.78, very low quality evidence) in one simulation study, but not to more noncompliance with guidance (RR 1.08; 95% CI 0.70 to 1.67, very low quality evidence). Following CDC recommendations for doffing led to less contamination in another study (very low quality evidence). There were no studies on the use of disinfectants while doffing. Different types of training versus each otherIn one study, the use of additional computer simulation led to less errors in doffing (MD -1.2, 95% CI -1.6 to -0.7) and in another study additional spoken instruction led to less errors (MD -0.9, 95% CI -1.4 to -0.4). One retrospective cohort study assessed the effect of active training - defined as face-to-face instruction - versus passive training - defined as folders or videos - on noncompliance with PPE use and on noncompliance with doffing guidance. Active training did not considerably reduce noncompliance in PPE use (Odds Ratio (OR) 0.63; 95% CI 0.31 to 1.30) but reduced noncompliance with doffing procedures (OR 0.45; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.98, very low quality evidence). There were no studies on how to retain the results of training in the long term or on resource use.The quality of the evidence was very low for all comparisons because of high risk of bias in studies, indirectness of evidence, and small numbers of participants. This means that it is likely that the true effect can be substantially different from the one reported here. 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. We also found very low quality evidence that double gloving and CDC doffing guidance appear to decrease the risk of contamination and that more active training in PPE use may reduce PPE and doffing errors more than passive training. However, the data all come from single studies with high risk of bias and we are uncertain about the estimates of effects.We need simulation studies conducted with several dozens of participants, preferably using a non-pathogenic virus, to find out which type and combination of PPE protects best, and what is the best way to remove PPE. We also need randomised controlled studies of the effects of one type of training versus another to find out which training works best in the long term. HCWs exposed to highly infectious diseases should have their use of PPE registered and should be prospectively followed for their risk of infection.

Although they play an important role in infection prevention and control, textile materials and personal protective equipment (PPE) used in health care settings are known to be one of the sources of cross-infection. Gowns are recommended to prevent transmission of infectious diseases in certain settings; however, laboratory and field studies have produced mixed results of their efficacy. PPE used in health care is regulated as either class I (low risk) or class II (intermediate risk) devices in the United States. Many organizations have published guidelines for the use of PPE, including isolation gowns, in health care settings. In addition, the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation published a guidance document on the selection of gowns and a classification standard on liquid barrier performance for both surgical and isolation gowns. However, there is currently no existing standard specific to isolation gowns that considers not only the barrier resistance but also a wide array of end user desired attributes. As a result, infection preventionists and purchasing agents face several difficulties in the selection process, and end users have limited or no information on the levels of protection provided by isolation gowns. Lack of knowledge about the performance of protective clothing used in health care became more apparent during the 2014 Ebola epidemic. This article reviews laboratory studies, regulations, guidelines and standards pertaining to isolation gowns, characterization problems, and other potential barriers of isolation gown selection and use.