Back

Utility of Cloth Masks in Preventing Respiratory Infections: A Systematic Review

Mondal, A.; Das, A.; Goswami, R. P.

2020-05-11 infectious diseases
10.1101/2020.05.07.20093864
Show abstract

BackgroundUsing face masks is one of the possible prevention methods against respiratory pathogens. A number of studies and reviews have been performed regarding the use of medical grade masks like surgical masks, N95 respirators etc. However, the use of cloth masks has received little attention. ObjectivesThe purpose of this review is to analyze the available data regarding the use of cloth masks for the prevention of respiratory infections. We intended to use data from both clinical and non-clinical studies to arrive at our conclusion. MethodsWe used PubMed, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar as our source databases. Both clinical and non-clinical studies, which had data regarding the efficacy of cloth masks, were selected. Articles not containing analyzable data including opinion articles, review articles etc. were excluded. After screening the search results, ten studies could be included in our review. Data relevant to our objective was extracted from each study including clinical efficacy, compliance, filtration efficacy etc. Data from some studies were simplified for the purpose of comparison. Extracted data was summarized and categorized for detailed analysis. Qualitative synthesis of the data was performed. But the heterogeneity between the studies did not allow for a meta-analysis. DiscussionThe review was limited by a lack of sufficient clinical studies. Lack of standardization between studies was another limitation. Although cloth masks generally perform poorer than the medical grade masks, they may be better than no masks at all. Filtration efficacy varied greatly depending on the material used, with some materials showing a filtration efficacy above 90%. However, leakage could reduce efficacy of masks by about 50%. Standardization of cloth masks and appropriate use is essential for cloth masks to be effective. However, result of a randomized controlled trial suggest that they may be ineffective in the healthcare setting.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
based on 1737 papers
Top 16%
21.6%
2
Journal of Hospital Infection
based on 21 papers
Top 0.1%
12.0%
3
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology
based on 17 papers
Top 0.2%
5.1%
4
American Journal of Infection Control
based on 12 papers
Top 0.1%
5.1%
5
The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
based on 50 papers
Top 2%
4.2%
6
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
based on 116 papers
Top 10%
2.5%
50% of probability mass above
7
BMJ Open
based on 553 papers
Top 34%
2.5%
8
Frontiers in Medicine
based on 99 papers
Top 7%
2.5%
9
International Journal of Infectious Diseases
based on 115 papers
Top 8%
2.0%
10
Scientific Reports
based on 701 papers
Top 67%
1.9%
11
Cureus
based on 64 papers
Top 10%
1.7%
12
BMC Infectious Diseases
based on 110 papers
Top 11%
1.4%
13
Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness
based on 16 papers
Top 2%
1.4%
14
Heliyon
based on 57 papers
Top 10%
0.9%
15
PLOS Global Public Health
based on 287 papers
Top 19%
0.9%
16
Archives of Clinical and Biomedical Research
based on 18 papers
Top 2%
0.9%
17
Archives of Public Health
based on 12 papers
Top 1.0%
0.9%
18
BMJ Global Health
based on 95 papers
Top 11%
0.9%
19
Occupational and Environmental Medicine
based on 15 papers
Top 0.8%
0.9%
20
Journal of Medical Virology
based on 95 papers
Top 8%
0.9%
21
European Respiratory Journal
based on 44 papers
Top 5%
0.9%
22
Annals of Translational Medicine
based on 14 papers
Top 4%
0.7%
23
Frontiers in Public Health
based on 135 papers
Top 27%
0.7%
24
BioMed Research International
based on 11 papers
Top 3%
0.7%
25
Clinical Infectious Diseases
based on 219 papers
Top 21%
0.7%
26
Journal of Infection
based on 64 papers
Top 7%
0.7%
27
PeerJ
based on 46 papers
Top 11%
0.7%