Face masks prevent transmission of respiratory diseases: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Ollila, H. M.; Partinen, M.; Koskela, J.; Savolainen, R.; Rotkirch, A.; Laine, L. T.
Show abstract
AO_SCPLOWBSTRACTC_SCPLOWO_ST_ABSObjectiveC_ST_ABSTo examine the effect of face mask intervention in respiratory infections across different exposure settings and age groups. DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis. Data sourcesPubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science were searched for randomized controlled trials investigating the effect of face masks on respiratory infections published by November 18th, 2020. We followed PRISMA guidelines. Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesRandomized controlled trials investigating face masks in respiratory infections across different exposure settings. Two reviewers performed the search, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. Random effects meta-analysis with risk ratio, adjusted odds ratios, and number needed to treat were performed. Findings by source control or wearer protection, age groups, exposure settings, and role of non-compliance were evaluated. ResultsSeventeen studies were included, (N=11,601 cases and N=10,286 controls, follow-up from 4 days to 19 months). Fourteen trials included adults and children and three trials included children only. Twelve studies showed non-compliance in treatment and eleven in control group. Four studies supported the use of face masks. Meta-analysis across all studies with risk ratios found no association with number of infections (RR=0.957 [0.810 - 1.131], p=0.608). Meta-analysis using odds ratios adjusted for age, sex, and vaccination (when available) showed protective effect of face masks (OR=0.850 [0.736 - 0.982], p=0.027). Subgroup meta-analysis with adjusted odds ratios found a decrease in respiratory infections among adults (14 studies, OR = 0.829 [0.709 - 0.969], p=0.019) in source control setting (OR = 0.845 [0.7375 - 0.969], p=0.0159) and when face masks were used together with hand hygiene OR = 0.690 [0.568 - 0.838], p=0.0002). Overall between-study heterogeneity was large also in the subgroup analyses. ConclusionDespite the large between study heterogeneity, compliance bias and differences by environmental settings, the findings support the use of face masks to prevent respiratory infections. PROSPERO registration number CRD42020205523.
Matching journals
The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Modelling the impact of behavioural interventions during pandemics: A systematic review 94%
- Prevalence and outcomes of co-infection and super-infection with SARS-CoV-2 and other pathogens: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis 93%
- Laboratory-confirmed respiratory viral infection triggers for acute myocardial infarction and stroke: systematic review protocol 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Efficacy and effectiveness of hand hygiene-related practices used community settings for removal of organisms from hands: A systematic review 94%
- Characterising long term Covid-19: a living systematic review 91%
- The isolated effect of age on the risk of COVID-19 severe outcomes: a systematic review with meta-analysis 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Long-Term Acceptability of Hygiene, Face Covering, and Social Distancing Interventions to Prevent Exacerbations in people living with Airways Diseases 91%
- Adrenaline (epinephrine) compared to selective beta-2-agonist in adults or children with acute asthma: a systematic review and meta-analysis 91%
- A systematic review of Anakinra, Sarilumab, Siltuximab with meta-analysis of Tocilizumab for Covid-19 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Personal protective equipment for reducing the risk of COVID-19 infection among healthcare workers involved in emergency trauma surgery during the pandemic: a systematic review protocol 94%
- Comparison of preprints and final journal publications from COVID-19 Studies: Discrepancies in results reporting and spin in interpretation 92%
- The Use of Machine Learning in Occupational Risk Communication for Healthcare Workers – Protocol for scoping review 92%
Similar papers in this journal
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.