Methodological overview of the 16 studies included in the present review.

Methodological overview of the 16 studies included in the present review.</p

The search strategy terms to identify studies relevant to the present review.

The search strategy terms to identify studies relevant to the present review.</p

PRISMA flow diagram [43] of the study selection, including literature search and reasons for exclusion.

The reason for exclusion of an article was based on a hierarchy; that is, where a paper failed to meet multiple inclusion criteria, it was excluded based on the first appropriate reason and counted at this point in the exclusions list.</p

PRISMA 2020 checklist.

(DOCX)</p

Quality assessment of the included 16 studies, based on the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool criteria (MMAT) [44].

A score of 0 indicates a high risk of bias (dark grey), a score of 1 indicates an unclear risk of bias (grey) and a score of 2 indicates a low risk of bias (light grey); a description of the 7 checklist items is presented for each type of study in the figure legend. NB: Studies labelled in italics are Mixed-Methods (Davis et al. 2020; Park & Langseth-Schmidt et al. 2016); as per the MMAT [44], these studies were assessed on both Qualitative and Quantitative /Non-Randomised study criteria below.</p

Key findings from the 16 studies included in the present review regarding the effect of PPE fit on performance of (A) body armour; (B) gloves; (C) helmets; (D) spacesuits; and (E) uniforms.

Key findings from the 16 studies included in the present review regarding the effect of PPE fit on performance of (A) body armour; (B) gloves; (C) helmets; (D) spacesuits; and (E) uniforms.</p