Cited by 15Infection Control and VentilationOccupational Health and Safety in WorkplacesOccupational Health and Performance

A systematic review of passing fit testing of the masks and respirators used during the COVID-19 pandemic: Part 1-quantitative fit test procedures

Open access
Fakherpour, Anahita, Jahangiri, Mehdi, Jansz, Janis·2023·PLOS ONE

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Background: During respiratory infection pandemics, masks and respirators are highly sought after, especially for frontline healthcare workers and patients carrying respiratory viruses. The objective of this study was to systematically review fit test pass rates and identify factors influencing the fitting characteristics. Methods: Potentially relevant studies were identified using PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Science Direct during the COVID-19 pandemic from February 5, 2020, to March 21, 2023. The search strategy using the following keywords was conducted: Quantitative Fit Test, Condensation Nuclei Counter, Controlled Negative Pressure, PortaCount, Sibata, Accufit, Fit, Seal, Mask, Respirator, Respiratory Protective Device, Respiratory Protective Equipment, Protective Device, Personal Protective Equipment, COVID-19, Coronavirus, and SARS-CoV-2. The quality of the included studies was also assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Results: A total of 137 articles met the eligibility criteria. Fifty articles had a quality score of less than 7 (good quality). A total of 21 studies had a fit test pass rate of less than 50%. 26 studies on disposable respirators and 11 studies on reusable respirators had an FF of less than 50 and less than 200, respectively. The most influential factors include respirator brand/model, style, gender, ethnicity, facial dimensions, facial hair, age, reuse, extensive movement, seal check, comfort and usability assessment, and training. Conclusion: 37.36% of the disposable respirator studies and 43% of the reusable respirator studies did not report fit test results. 67.86% of the disposable respirator studies had a fit test pass rate greater than 50%, and 35.84% of these studies had an FF greater than 100. Also, 85.71% of the reusable respirator studies had a fit test pass rate greater than 50%, and 52.77% of these studies had an FF greater than 1000. Overall, the fit test pass rate was relatively acceptable. Newly developed or modified respirators must undergo reliable testing to ensure the protection of HCWs. Subject and respirator characteristics should be considered when implementing fit testing protocols. An optimal fit test panel should be developed prior to respirator design, certification, procurement decisions, and selection procedures.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0293129

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Authors
Fakherpour, A., Jahangiri, M., & Jansz, J.
Affiliations
  • Shiraz University of Medical Sciences (IR)
  • Curtin University (AU)
Corresponding author
Jahangiri, Mehdi
Venue
PLOS ONE
Published
2023-10-26
Volume
18
Issue
10
Pages
e0293129
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4387952617
Cited by
15
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2
FWCI
0.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Shiraz University of Medical Sciences (23984)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Infection Control and Ventilation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Occupational Health and Safety in Workplaces
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Occupational Health and Performance
Keywords
respiratory protective equipment, respirator fit testing, fit factor, COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare workers, personal protective equipment, facial dimensions, condensation particle counter
MeSH terms
COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, Equipment Design, Humans, Ventilators, Mechanical, Respiratory Protective Devices, User-Computer Interface, Occupational Exposure, Pandemics

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