Skip directly to site content Skip directly to page options Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link
Volume 10, Number 2—February 2004
THEME ISSUE
2004 SARS Edition
SARS Transmission

SARS among Critical Care Nurses, Toronto

Mark B. Loeb*Comments to Author , Allison McGeer†, Bonnie Henry‡, Marianna Ofner§, David Rose¶, Tammy Hlywka*, Joanne Levie*, Jane McQueen*, Stephanie Smith*, Lorraine Moss*, Andrew Smith*, Karen Green†, and Stephen D. Walter*
Author affiliations: *McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; †Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; ‡Toronto Public Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; §Health Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; ¶Scarborough Grace Hospital, Ontario, Canada

Main Article

Table 3

Nurses’ risk of acquiring SARS based on use of personal protective equipmenta

Type of personal protective equipment Attack rate (%) according to personal protective equipment used
Relative risk (95% CI) 2-Tailed Fisher exact p value
Consistent Inconsistent
Gown
3/20 (15)
5/12 (42)
0.36 (0.10 to 1.24)
0.12
Gloves
4/22 (18)
4/10 (40)
0.45 (0.14 to 1.46)
0.22
N95 or surgical mask
3/23 (13)
5/9 (56)
0.23 (0.07 to 0.78)
0.02
N95a
2/16 (13)
5/9 (56)
0.22 (0.05 to 0.93)
0.06
Surgical maskb
1/4 (25)
5/9 (56)
0.45 (0.07 to 2.71)
0.56
N95 versus surgical maskc 2/16 (13) 1/4 (25) 0.50 (0.06 to 4.23) 0.51

aSARS, severe acute respiratory syndrome; CI, confidence interval.
bThe comparator is use of no mask. The denominator n (total=32) changes for these comparisons as the nurses who consistently used the indicated personal protective equipment were compared to nurses who wore no masks.
cConsistent use of the N95 mask versus consistent use of a surgical mask. The denominator n (total=32) changes for these comparisons as the nurses who consistently used the indicated personal protective equipment were compared to the indicated unique group, rather than to the rest of the nurses.

Main Article

Page created: January 31, 2011
Page updated: January 31, 2011
Page reviewed: January 31, 2011
The conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.
file_external