Gender disparity between authors in leading medical journals during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional review

ObjectivesEvaluate gender differences in authorship of COVID-19 articles in high-impact medical journals compared with other topics.DesignCross-sectional review.Data sourcesMedline database.Eligibility criteriaArticles published from 1 January to 31 December 2020 in the seven leading general medical journals by impact factor. Article types included primary research, reviews, editorials and commentaries.Data extractionKey data elements were whether the study topic was related to COVID-19 and names of the principal and the senior authors. A hierarchical approach was used to determine the likely gender of authors. Logistic regression assessed the association of study characteristics, including COVID-19 status, with authors’ likely gender; this was quantified using adjusted ORs (aORs).ResultsWe included 2252 articles, of which 748 (33.2%) were COVID-19-related and 1504 (66.8%) covered other topics. A likely gender was determined for 2138 (94.9%) principal authors and 1890 (83.9%) senior authors. Men were significantly more likely to be both principal (1364 men; 63.8%) and senior (1332 men; 70.5%) authors. COVID-19-related articles were not associated with the odds of men being principal (aOR 0.99; 95% CI 0.81 to 1.21; p=0.89) or senior authors (aOR 0.96; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.19; p=0.71) relative to other topics. Articles with men as senior authors were more likely to have men as principal authors (aOR 1.49; 95% CI 1.21 to 1.83; p<0.001). Men were more likely to author articles reporting original research and those with corresponding authors based outside the USA and Europe.ConclusionsWomen were substantially under-represented as authors among articles in leading medical journals; this was not significantly different for COVID-19-related articles. Study limitations include potential for misclassification bias due to the name-based analysis. Results suggest that barriers to women’s authorship in high-impact journals during COVID-19 are not significantly larger than barriers that preceded the pandemic and that are likely to continue beyond it.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020186702.

Download Full-text

Patient, client, consumer, survivor or other alternatives? A scoping review of preferred terms for labelling individuals who access healthcare across settings

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025166 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 9 (3) ◽

pp. e025166 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Daniel S J Costa ◽

Rebecca Mercieca-Bebber ◽

Stephanie Tesson ◽

Zac Seidler ◽

Anna-Lena Lopez

Keyword(s):

Cancer Survivorship ◽

Data Extraction ◽

Reporting Quality ◽

Healthcare Services ◽

Eligibility Criteria ◽

Scoping Study ◽

Healthcare Settings ◽

Mental Health Settings ◽

The Usa ◽

Study Characteristics

ObjectivesUse of the term ‘patient’ has been recently debated, compared with alternatives including ‘consumer’ and ‘client’. This scoping study aimed to provide an integrated view of preferred labels across healthcare contexts and countries to clarify labelling preferences of individuals accessing healthcare.DesignScoping study.Data sourcesA preliminary literature search using GoogleScholar, Medline, Embase and PsycINFO found 43 key papers discussing terminology for labelling individuals accessing healthcare services. We then used citation chaining with PubMed and GoogleScholar to identify studies discussing term preferences among healthcare recipients.Eligibility criteriaNo date limits were applied, and all healthcare settings were considered. Primary research studies examining terminology preferences of individuals accessing healthcare, published in peer-reviewed journals were eligible.Data extraction and synthesisAll authors extracted data regarding preferred term and study characteristics, and assessed reporting quality of the studies using criteria relevant to our design.ResultsWe identified 1565 articles, of which 47 met inclusion criteria. Six articles that examined preference for personal address (eg, first name) were excluded. Of the remaining 41 studies, 33 examined generic terms (‘patient’, ‘client’, ‘consumer’) and 8 focused on cancer survivorship. Of the 33 examining generic terms, 27 reported a preference for ‘patient’ and four for ‘client’. Samples preferring ‘client’ were typically based in mental health settings and conducted in the USA. Of the eight cancer survivorship studies, five found a preference for ‘survivor’, and three ‘someone who had had cancer’.ConclusionsOverall, healthcare recipients appear to prefer the term ‘patient’, with few preferring ‘consumer’. Within general clinical and research contexts, it therefore seems appropriate to continue using the label ‘patient’ in the absence of knowledge about an individual’s preferences. Reasons for preferences (eg, familiarity, social identity) and the implications of labelling for healthcare have not been investigated adequately, necessitating future empirical (including qualitative) research.

Download Full-text

Diversity in health professional education scholarship: a document analysis of international author representation in leading journals

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2020-043970 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 10 (11) ◽

pp. e043970

Author(s):

Brittany Buffone ◽

Ilena Djuana ◽

Katherine Yang ◽

Kyle J Wilby ◽

Maguy S El Hajj ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Health Professional ◽

Professional Education ◽

Teaching And Learning ◽

Western Europe ◽

English Language ◽

Data Extraction ◽

Document Analysis ◽

Original Research ◽

Health Professional Education ◽

Eligibility Criteria

ObjectivesThe global distribution of health professionals and associated training programmes is wide but prior study has demonstrated reported scholarship of teaching and learning arises from predominantly Western perspectives.DesignWe conducted a document analysis to examine authorship of recent publications to explore current international representation.Data sourcesThe table of contents of seven high-impact English-language health professional education journals between 2008 and 2018 was extracted from Embase.Eligibility criteriaThe journals were selected according to highest aggregate ranking across specific scientific impact indices and stating health professional education in scope; only original research and review articles from these publications were included for analysis.Data extraction and synthesisThe table of contents was extracted and eligible publications screened by independent reviewers who further characterised the geographic affiliations of the publishing research teams and study settings (if applicable).ResultsA total 12 018 titles were screened and 7793 (64.8%) articles included. Most were collaborations (7048, 90.4%) conducted by authors from single geographic regions (5851, 86%). Single-region teams were most often formed from countries in North America (56%), Northern Europe (14%) or Western Europe (10%). Overall lead authorship from Asian, African or South American regions was less than 15%, 5% and 1%, respectively. Geographic representation varied somewhat by journal, but not across time.ConclusionsDiversity in health professional education scholarship, as marked by nation of authors’ professional affiliations, remains low. Under-representation of published research outside Global North regions limits dissemination of novel ideas resulting in unidirectional flow of experiences and a concentrated worldview of teaching and learning.

Download Full-text

Publishing at any cost: a cross-sectional study of the amount that medical researchers spend on open access publishing each year

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2020-047107 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (2) ◽

pp. e047107

Author(s):

Mallory K. Ellingson ◽

Xiaoting Shi ◽

Joshua J. Skydel ◽

Kate Nyhan ◽

Richard Lehman ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Open Access ◽

Senior Author ◽

High Impact ◽

Open Access Publishing ◽

Original Research ◽

Potential Cost ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Review Articles ◽

Open Access Journals ◽

Medical Researchers

ObjectiveTo estimate the financial costs paid by individual medical researchers from meeting the article processing charges (APCs) levied by open access journals in 2019.DesignCross-sectional analysis.Data sourcesScopus was used to generate two random samples of researchers, the first with a senior author article indexed in the ‘Medicine’ subject area (general researchers) and the second with an article published in the ten highest-impact factor general clinical medicine journals (high-impact researchers) in 2019. For each researcher, Scopus was used to identify all first and senior author original research or review articles published in 2019. Data were obtained from Scopus, institutional profiles, Journal Citation Reports, publisher databases, the Directory of Open Access Journals, and individual journal websites.Main outcome measuresMedian APCs paid by general and high-impact researchers for all first and senior author research and review articles published in 2019.ResultsThere were 241 general and 246 high-impact researchers identified as eligible for our study. In 2019, the general and high-impact researchers published a total of 914 (median 2, IQR 1–5) and 1471 (4, 2–8) first or senior author research or review articles, respectively. 42% (384/914) of the articles from the general researchers and 29% (428/1471) of the articles from the high-impact medical researchers were published in fully open access journals. The median total APCs paid by general researchers in 2019 was US$191 (US$0–US$2500) and the median total paid by high-impact researchers was US$2900 (US$0–US$5465); the maximum paid by a single researcher in total APCs was US$30115 and US$34676, respectively.ConclusionsMedical researchers in 2019 were found to have paid between US$0 and US$34676 in total APCs. As journals with APCs become more common, it is important to continue to evaluate the potential cost to researchers, especially on individuals who may not have the funding or institutional resources to cover these costs.

Download Full-text

Diagnosing Overtraining Syndrome: A Scoping Review

Sports Health A Multidisciplinary Approach ◽

10.1177/19417381211044739 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 194173812110447

Author(s):

Justin Carrard ◽

Anne-Catherine Rigort ◽

Christian Appenzeller-Herzog ◽

Flora Colledge ◽

Karsten Königstein ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Scoping Review ◽

Sports Medicine ◽

Female Athletes ◽

Data Extraction ◽

Eligibility Criteria ◽

Level Of Evidence ◽

Exercise Tests ◽

Overtraining Syndrome ◽

Scoping Reviews ◽

Study Characteristics

Context: Overtraining syndrome (OTS) is a condition characterized by a long-term performance decrement, which occurs after a persisting imbalance between training-related and nontraining-related load and recovery. Because of the lack of a gold standard diagnostic test, OTS remains a diagnosis of exclusion. Objective: To systematically review and map biomarkers and tools reported in the literature as potentially diagnostic for OTS. Data Sources: PubMed, Web of Science, and SPORTDiscus were searched from database inception to February 4, 2021, and results screened for eligibility. Backward and forward citation tracking on eligible records were used to complement results of database searching. Study Selection: Studies including athletes with a likely OTS diagnosis, as defined by the European College of Sport Science and the American College of Sports Medicine, and reporting at least 1 biomarker or tool potentially diagnostic for OTS were deemed eligible. Study Design: Scoping review following the guidelines of the Joanna Briggs Institute and PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Level of Evidence: Level 4. Data Extraction: Athletes’ population, criteria used to diagnose OTS, potentially diagnostic biomarkers and tools, as well as miscellaneous study characteristics were extracted. Results: The search yielded 5561 results, of which 39 met the eligibility criteria. Three diagnostic scores, namely the EROS-CLINICAL, EROS-SIMPLIFIED, and EROS-COMPLETE scores (EROS = Endocrine and Metabolic Responses on Overtraining Syndrome study), were identified. Additionally, basal hormone, neurotransmitter and other metabolite levels, hormonal responses to stimuli, psychological questionnaires, exercise tests, heart rate variability, electroencephalography, immunological and redox parameters, muscle structure, and body composition were reported as potentially diagnostic for OTS. Conclusion: Specific hormones, neurotransmitters, and metabolites, as well as psychological, electrocardiographic, electroencephalographic, and immunological patterns were identified as potentially diagnostic for OTS, reflecting its multisystemic nature. As exemplified by the EROS scores, combinations of these variables may be required to diagnose OTS. These scores must now be validated in larger samples and within female athletes.

Download Full-text

The effective interventions to improve long-term physiotherapy exercise adherence among patients with lower limb osteoarthritis. A systematic review

10.21203/rs.3.rs-926978/v1 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Pathmanathan Cinthuja ◽

Nidhya Krishnamoorthy ◽

Gamalendira Shivapatham

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Lower Limb ◽

English Language ◽

Data Extraction ◽

Exercise Adherence ◽

Case Control Studies ◽

Eligibility Criteria ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Booster Sessions

Abstract Introduction: Osteoarthritis (OA) is a chronic condition that severely effects work life balance impacting psychosocial and socio-economic aspects. Physiotherapy exercise is one of the intervention methods for the management of OA. Adherence to the exercise by patients is essential for the effective management of OA. Objectives: To determine different methods used to enhance physiotherapy exercise adherence for more than 12 months among patients with osteoarthritis and to report the effective method to enhance exercise adherence among people with lower limb osteoarthritis. Design: Systematic review Methods: PubMed, Pedro, Web of Science, and EMBASE databases searched for randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies, and cross-sectional studies published in the English language from 2000 to 2020. The date of data extraction was 04 September 2020. Two independent researchers conducted literature search, assessed eligibility, extracted data, conducted methodology quality assessment using the PEDro scale, and conducted risk of bias assessment. A narrative synthesis of key outcomes is presented; preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review was used to report the review. The study protocol was registered in the Prospero (Prospero ID: CRD42020205653). Results: The primary search strategy identified 5839 potentially relevant articles, of which 5157 remained after discarding duplicates. After screening based on title and abstract, 40 papers were potentially eligible for inclusion. Five of these papers met all predefined eligibility criteria. Introducing methods to enhance exercise adherence has caused a significant increase in exercise adherence for the short term (less than six months or 12 months). There were no significant differences, long-term adherence with different methods, reported. The results indicate that booster sessions (89.69%) and telephone-linked communication (86%) had higher percentages for the exercise adherence. Secondary outcomes such as pain, stiffness, function, show positive outcomes with increasing exercise adherence. However, there were no significant differences reported. Conclusion: The booster sessions and telephone-linked communication appear to enhance exercise adherence for more than 12 months among patients with osteoarthritis. However, a number of high-quality studies are inadequate to confirm our findings. Therefore, more studies with higher methodological quality are needed to determine the best strategies to enhance long-term exercise adherence among people with osteoarthritis. Key terms: Osteoarthritis, Long term, Exercise adherence

Download Full-text

Open access policies of leading medical journals: a cross-sectional study

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028655 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 9 (6) ◽

pp. e028655

Author(s):

Tim S Ellison ◽

Tim Koder ◽

Laura Schmidt ◽

Amy Williams ◽

Christopher C Winchester

Keyword(s):

Open Access ◽

Cross Sectional Study ◽

Original Research ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Medical Journals ◽

Funded Research ◽

For Profit ◽

Creative Commons ◽

Commercial Research ◽

Access Policies

ObjectivesAcademical and not-for-profit research funders are increasingly requiring that the research they fund must be published open access, with some insisting on publishing with a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence to allow the broadest possible use. We aimed to clarify the open access variants provided by leading medical journals and record the availability of the CC BY licence for commercially funded research.MethodsWe identified medical journals with a 2015 impact factor of ≥15.0 on 24 May 2017, then excluded from the analysis journals that only publish review articles. Between 29 June 2017 and 26 July 2017, we collected information about each journal’s open access policies from their websites and/or by email contact. We contacted the journals by email again between 6 December 2017 and 2 January 2018 to confirm our findings.ResultsThirty-five medical journals publishing original research from 13 publishers were included in the analysis. All 35 journals offered some form of open access allowing articles to be free-to-read, either immediately on publication or after a delay of up to 12 months. Of these journals, 21 (60%) provided immediate open access with a CC BY licence under certain circumstances (eg, to specific research funders). Of these 21, 20 only offered a CC BY licence to authors funded by non-commercial organisations and one offered this option to any funder who required it.ConclusionsMost leading medical journals do not offer to authors reporting commercially funded research an open access licence that allows unrestricted sharing and adaptation of the published material. The journals’ policies are therefore not aligned with open access declarations and guidelines. Commercial research funders lag behind academical funders in the development of mandatory open access policies, and it is time for them to work with publishers to advance the dissemination of the research they fund.

Download Full-text

Neighbourhood socioeconomic status and overweight/obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis of epidemiological studies

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028238 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 9 (11) ◽

pp. e028238 ◽

Cited By ~ 7

Author(s):

Shimels Hussien Mohammed ◽

Tesfa Dejenie Habtewold ◽

Mulugeta Molla Birhanu ◽

Tesfamichael Awoke Sissay ◽

Balewgizie Sileshi Tegegne ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Socioeconomic Status ◽

Observational Studies ◽

Data Extraction ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Epidemiological Studies ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Eligibility Criteria ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Neighbourhood Socioeconomic Status

ObjectiveLow neighbourhood socioeconomic status (NSES) has been linked to a higher risk of overweight/obesity, irrespective of the individual’s own socioeconomic status. No meta-analysis study has been done on the association. Thus, this study was done to synthesise the existing evidence on the association of NSES with overweight, obesity and body mass index (BMI).DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesPubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Web of Sciences and Google Scholar databases were searched for articles published until 25 September 2019.Eligibility criteriaEpidemiological studies, both longitudinal and cross-sectional ones, which examined the link of NSES to overweight, obesity or BMI, were included.Data extraction and synthesisData extraction was done by two reviewers, working independently. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for the observational studies. The summary estimates of the relationships of NSES with overweight, obesity and BMI statuses were calculated with random-effects meta-analysis models. Heterogeneity was assessed by Cochran’s Q and I2 statistics. Subgroup analyses were done by age categories, continents, study designs and NSES measures. Publication bias was assessed by visual inspection of funnel plots and Egger’s regression test.ResultA total of 21 observational studies, covering 1 244 438 individuals, were included in this meta-analysis. Low NSES, compared with high NSES, was found to be associated with a 31% higher odds of overweight (pooled OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.47, p<0.001), a 45% higher odds of obesity (pooled OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.74, p<0.001) and a 1.09 kg/m2 increase in mean BMI (pooled beta=1.09, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.50, p<0.001).ConclusionNSES disparity might be contributing to the burden of overweight/obesity. Further studies are warranted, including whether addressing NSES disparity could reduce the risk of overweight/obesity.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017063889

Download Full-text

Epidemiology of gastric cancer in Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

Systematic Reviews ◽

10.1186/s13643-019-1214-2 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 8 (1) ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Celestin Danwang ◽

Jean Joel Bigna

Keyword(s):

Gastric Cancer ◽

Systematic Review ◽

Data Extraction ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Random Effect ◽

Case Series ◽

Case Fatality ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Statistical Heterogeneity ◽

The Usa

Abstract Background Gastric cancer is actually known as the sixth most frequent cancer and the second cancer-related cause of death worldwide. If studies giving an overview of current epidemiology of gastric cancer in Europe, Asia, and the USA are available, in Africa, studies reporting recent data on gastric cancer are sparse. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim therefore to provide relevant data on contemporary epidemiology of gastric cancer in Africa in terms of prevalence, incidence, and case fatality rate. Methods and design We will include cohort, case-control, cross-sectional studies, and case series with more than 30 participants. EMBASE, PubMed, Africa Index Medicus, Africa Journals Online, and Web of Science will be searched for relevant abstracts of studies published and unpublished between January 1, 2000, and April 30, 2019, without language restriction. The review will be reported according to the MOOSE (Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) guideline. After screening of abstracts, study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment, we shall assess the studies individually for clinical and statistical heterogeneity. Random-effect meta-analysis will be used to pool studies judged to be clinically homogenous. The Egger test and visual inspection of funnel plots will be used to assess publication bias. Discussion This review will provide relevant data on the current burden of gastric cancer in Africa. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42019130348.

Download Full-text

A protocol for a scoping review of equity measurement in mental health care for children and youth

Systematic Reviews ◽

10.1186/s13643-020-01495-3 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 9 (1) ◽

Author(s):

William Gardner ◽

Stuart G. Nicholls ◽

Graham J. Reid ◽

Brian Hutton ◽

Candyce Hamel ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Mental Health ◽

Scoping Review ◽

Full Text ◽

Data Extraction ◽

Open Science ◽

Children And Youth ◽

Eligibility Criteria ◽

Study Selection ◽

Study Characteristics ◽

Two Stages

Abstract Background Mental health (MH) problems are among the most important causes of morbidity and mortality for children and youth. Problems of lack of equity in child and youth MH services (CYMHS)—including, but not limited to, problems in inaccessibility and quality of services—are widespread. Characterizing the nature of equity in CYMHS is an ongoing challenge because the field lacks a consistent approach to conceptualizing equity. We will conduct a scoping review of how equity in MH services for children and youth has been defined, operationalized, and measured. Our objectives are to discover: (1) What conceptual definitions of equity are used by observational studies of CYMHS?; (2) What service characteristics of CYMHS care do indices of equity cover?; (3) What population dimensions have been used to operationalize equity?; (4) What statistical constructs have been used in indices that measure CYMHS equity?; and (5) What were the numerical values of those indices? Methods The following databases will be searched: Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials, CINAHL, EconLit, and Sociological Abstracts. Searches will be conducted from the date of inception to the end of the last full calendar year (December 2019). Studies will be included if they include an evaluation of a mental health service for children or youth (defined as those under 19 years of age) and which quantify variation in some aspect of child or youth mental health services (e.g., accessibility, volume, duration, or quality) as a function of socio-demographic and/or geographic variables. Study selection will occur over two stages. Stage one will select articles based on title and abstract using the liberal-accelerated method. Stage two will review the full texts of selected titles. Two reviewers will work independently on full-text reviewing, with each study screened twice using pre-specified eligibility criteria. One reviewer will chart study characteristics and indices to be verified by a second reviewer. Reviewers will resolve full-text screening and data extraction disagreements through discussion. Synthesis of the collected data will focus on compiling and mapping the types and characteristics of the indices used to evaluate MH services equity. Discussion The planned, systematic scoping review will survey the literature regarding how equity in MH services for children and youth has been operationalized and help inform future studies of equity in CYMHS. Systematic review registration Open Science Foundation ID SYSR-D-19-00371, https://osf.io/58srv/.

Download Full-text

Decontamination Interventions for the Reuse of Surgical Mask Personal Protective Equipment: A Systematic Review

10.31219/osf.io/z7exu ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

David J Zorko ◽

Shira Gertsman ◽

Katie O'Hearn ◽

Nicholas Timmerman ◽

Nasser Ambu-Ali ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Personal Protective Equipment ◽

Antimicrobial Properties ◽

Original Research ◽

Protective Equipment ◽

The Novel ◽

Eligibility Criteria ◽

Surgical Masks ◽

Study Characteristics ◽

Novel Coronavirus ◽

Citation Screening

Background: The high demand for personal protective equipment (PPE) during the novel coronavirus outbreak has created global shortages and prompted the need to develop strategies to conserve supply. Surgical mask PPE have a broad application of use in a pandemic setting, but little is known regarding decontamination interventions to allow for their reuse. Objective: Identify and synthesize data from original published studies evaluating interventions to decontaminate surgical masks for the purpose of reuse. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Global Health, the WHO COVID-19 database, Google Scholar, DisasterLit, preprint servers, and prominent journals from inception to April 8, 2020 for prospective original research on decontamination interventions for surgical mask PPE. Citation screening was conducted independently in duplicate. Study characteristics, interventions, and outcomes were extracted from included studies by two independent reviewers. Outcomes of interest included impact of decontamination interventions on surgical mask performance and germicidal effects. Results: Seven studies met eligibility criteria: one evaluated the effects of heat and chemical decontamination interventions applied after mask use on mask performance, and six evaluated interventions applied prior to mask use to enhance antimicrobial properties and/or mask performance. Mask performance and germicidal effects were both evaluated in heterogenous test conditions across a variety of mask samples (whole masks and pieces or individual mask layers). Safety outcomes were infrequently evaluated. Mask performance was best preserved with dry heat decontamination. Germicidal effects were best in salt-, N-halamine- and nanoparticle-coated masks. Conclusion: There is limited evidence on the safety or efficacy of surgical mask decontamination. Given the heterogenous methods used in the studies to date, we are unable to draw conclusions on the most appropriate, safest intervention(s) for decontaminating surgical masks for the purpose of reuse.

Download Full-text