↓ Skip to main content

New Minimum Relative Humidity Requirements Are Expected to Lead to More Medical Device Failures

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Medical Systems, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 Mendeley
Title
New Minimum Relative Humidity Requirements Are Expected to Lead to More Medical Device Failures
Published in
Journal of Medical Systems, December 2015
DOI 10.1007/s10916-015-0421-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mehdi Kohani, Michael Pecht

Abstract

In 2010, the Addendum D to ASHRAE Standard 170, "Ventilation of healthcare facilities," lowered the minimum relative humidity (RH) requirement of anesthetizing locations (including operating rooms, operating/surgical cystoscopic rooms, delivery rooms (Caesarean), recovery rooms, critical and intensive care, newborn intensive care, treatment rooms, trauma rooms (crisis or shock), laser eye rooms, newborn nursery suites, and endoscopy rooms) from 30 % to 20 %. The new minimum limit was adopted based on the results of a review paper that suggested that lowering humidity levels will have little or no impact on providing a safe environment for patients, staff, or medical equipment. That review paper reached this conclusion by assuming that there were no medical device failures due to electrostatic discharge (ESD). However, in an examination of the FDA's MAUDE database of reported defects and recalls, we identified numerous medical device failures explicitly due to ESD. This paper presents technical reliability and safety concerns regarding the new guidelines and recommends that such changes should not be implemented and that the guidelines should be revoked.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 3%
Unknown 33 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 15%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Researcher 2 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 3%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 11 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 6 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 15%
Engineering 4 12%
Psychology 2 6%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 13 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 December 2015.
All research outputs
#15,351,847
of 22,835,198 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Systems
#660
of 1,149 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#228,265
of 388,829 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Systems
#17
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,835,198 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,149 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 388,829 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.