We found very low quality evidence that more breathable types of PPE may not lead to more contamination, but may have greater user satisfaction. We also found very low quality evidence that double gloving and CDC doffing guidance appear to decrease the risk of contamination and that more active training in PPE use may reduce PPE and doffing errors more than passive training. However, the data all come from single studies with high risk of bias and we are uncertain about the estimates of effects.We need simulation studies conducted with several dozens of participants, preferably using a non-pathogenic virus, to find out which type and combination of PPE protects best, and what is the best way to remove PPE. We also need randomised controlled studies of the effects of one type of training versus another to find out which training works best in the long term. HCWs exposed to highly infectious diseases should have their use of PPE registered and should be prospectively followed for their risk of infection.

BackgroundOsteoarthritis of the knee is considered to be related to knee straining activities at work. The objective of this review is to assess the exposure dose-response relation between kneeling or squatting, lifting, and climbing stairs at work, and knee osteoarthritis.MethodsWe included cohort and case–control studies. For each study that reported enough data, we calculated the odds ratio (OR) per 5,000 hours of cumulative kneeling and per 100,000 kg of cumulative lifting. We pooled these incremental ORs in a random effects meta-analysis.ResultsWe included 15 studies (2 cohort and 13 case–control studies) of which nine assessed risks in more than two exposure categories. We considered all but one study at high risk of bias. The incremental OR per 5,000 hours of kneeling was 1.26 (95% confidence interval 1.17–1.35, 5 studies, moderate quality evidence) for a log-linear exposure dose-response model. For lifting, there was no exposure dose-response per 100,000 kg of lifetime lifting (OR 1.00, 95% confidence interval 1.00–1.01). For climbing, an exposure dose-response could not be calculated.ConclusionThere is moderate quality evidence that longer cumulative exposure to kneeling or squatting at work leads to a higher risk of osteoarthritis of the knee. For other exposure, there was no exposure dose-response or there were insufficient data to establish this. More reliable exposure measurements would increase the quality of the evidence.

No abstract

No abstract

Objective To assess the effectiveness of interventions for preventing occupational noise exposure or hearing loss compared to no intervention or alternative interventions. Design We searched biomedical databases up to 25 January 2012 for randomized controlled trials (RCT), controlled before-after studies and interrupted time-series of hearing loss prevention among workers exposed to noise. Study sample We included 19 studies with 82 794 participants evaluating effects of hearing loss prevention programs (HLPP). The overall quality of studies was low to very low, as rated using the GRADE approach. Results One study of stricter legislation showed a favorable effect on noise levels. Three studies, of which two RCTs, did not find an effect of a HLPP. Four studies showed that better use of hearing protection devices in HLPPs decreased the risk of hearing loss. In four other studies, workers in a HLPP still had a 0.5 dB greater hearing loss at 4 kHz (95% CI – 0.5 to 1.7) than non-exposed workers. In two similar studies there was a substantial risk of hearing loss in spite of a HLPP. Conclusions Stricter enforcement of legislation and better implementation of HLPPs can reduce noise levels in workplaces. Better evaluations of technical interventions and long-term effects are needed.