Table 1 Characteristics of included studies (n = 5)
From: The effect of eye protection on SARS-CoV-2 transmission: a systematic review
Study ID, area, country | Study type and setting | Intervention period | Population | Intervention description | Outcomes reported |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Al Mohajer [10] Texas, USA | Before-after; hospital | Jul 6–Sep 7, 2020 | n = 6527 HCPs, | Face shields (Lazarus 3D, Corvallis, OR, USA). Goggles allowed as an alternative for those unable to tolerate face shields | n (%) HCPs tested positive; total patient days; hospital-acquired infections |
Bhaskar [5] Chennai, India | Before-after; community screening project | May 10–Jun 30, 2020 | n = 62 community health workers | Face shields made of polyethylene terephthalate (250-μm thickness) | n (%) HCPs tested positive; n (%) community dwelling people visited +  |
Hamilton [11] Devon, UK | Before-after; District hospital COVID ward | mid-Dec 2020–Feb 2021 | n = 410 HCPs | Universal visors for all patient care | n (%) HCPs tested positive |
Rodriguez-Lopez [13] Cali, Columbia | Case–control; hospital | Jun 10–Jul 25, 2020 | n = 223 HCWs | Face shield or goggles | Factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection including use of PPE, and compliance |
Shah [14] Minnesota, USA | Retrospective cohort; Clinic | May 13–Nov 30, 2020 | n = 345 HCPs | Eye protection (face shield, protective wraparound eye wear, or a polycarbonate face shield or helmet) | n (%) HCPs tested positive |