Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 330

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Personal protective equipment and intensive care unit healthcare worker safety in the COVID-19 era (PPE-SAFE): An international survey

Open access
Tabah, Alexis, Ramanan, Mahesh, Laupland, Kevin B., Buetti, Niccolò, Cortegiani, Andrea, Mellinghoff, Johannes, Conway Morris, Andrew, Camporota, Luigi, Zappella, Nathalie, Elhadi, Muhammed, Povoa, Pedro, Amrein, Karin, Vidal, Gabriela, Derde, Lennie, Bassetti, Matteo, Francois, Guy, Ssi yan kai, Nathalie, De Waele, Jan J.·2020·Journal of Critical Care
DOI 10.1016/j.jcrc.2020.06.005
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Purpose To survey healthcare workers (HCW) on availability and use of personal protective equipment (PPE) caring for COVID-19 patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). Materials and method A web-based survey distributed worldwide in April 2020. Results We received 2711 responses from 1797 (67%) physicians, 744 (27%) nurses, and 170 (6%) Allied HCW. For routine care, most (1557, 58%) reportedly used FFP2/N95 masks, waterproof long sleeve gowns (1623; 67%), and face shields/visors (1574; 62%). Powered Air-Purifying Respirators were used routinely and for intubation only by 184 (7%) and 254 (13%) respondents, respectively. Surgical masks were used for routine care by 289 (15%) and 47 (2%) for intubations. At least one piece of standard PPE was unavailable for 1402 (52%), and 817 (30%) reported reusing single-use PPE. PPE was worn for a median of 4 h (IQR 2, 5). Adverse effects of PPE were associated with longer shift durations and included heat (1266, 51%), thirst (1174, 47%), pressure areas (1088, 44%), headaches (696, 28%), Inability to use the bathroom (661, 27%) and extreme exhaustion (492, 20%). Conclusions HCWs reported widespread shortages, frequent reuse of, and adverse effects related to PPE. Urgent action by healthcare administrators, policymakers, governments and industry is warranted.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jcrc.2020.06.005

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 6 references

Cited by

See all 330

Metadata

Authors
Tabah, A., Ramanan, M., Laupland, K. B., Buetti, N., Cortegiani, A., Mellinghoff, J., Conway Morris, A., Camporota, L., Zappella, N., Elhadi, M., Povoa, P., Amrein, K., Vidal, G., Derde, L., Bassetti, M., Francois, G., Ssi yan kai, N., & De Waele, J. J.
Venue
Journal of Critical Care
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-10
Volume
59
Pages
70-75
ISSN
0883-9441 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.jcrc.2020.06.005
OpenAlex
W3035016075
Cited by
330
References
6
FWCI
32.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Personal protective equipment and intensive care unit healthcare worker safety in the COVID-19 era (PPE-SAFE): An international survey. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jcrc.2020.06.005
The paper
Tabah, A., Ramanan, M., Laupland, K. B., Buetti, N., Cortegiani, A., Mellinghoff, J., Conway Morris, A., Camporota, L., Zappella, N., Elhadi, M., Povoa, P., Amrein, K., Vidal, G., Derde, L., Bassetti, M., Francois, G., Ssi yan kai, N., & De Waele, J. J. (2020). Personal protective equipment and intensive care unit healthcare worker safety in the COVID-19 era (PPE-SAFE): An international survey. Journal of Critical Care. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrc.2020.06.005

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.