Skip to main content

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
  1. HCPs healthcare professional, HCWs healthcare workers