Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23725338›Full record

ArticleBMC research notes2013

Availability, consistency and evidence-base of policies and guidelines on the use of mask and respirator to protect hospital health care workers: a global analysis.

Abrar Ahmad Chughtai, Holly Seale, Chandini Raina MacIntyre

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC research notes, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

49 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 88 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Face masks vs. COVID-19: a systematic review.Investigacion y educacion en enfermeria · 2020
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Effectiveness of Masks and Respirators Against Respiratory Infections in Healthcare Workers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2017
    Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Herd protection effect of N95 respirators in healthcare workers.The Journal of international medical research · 2017
    Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. A systematic review andPreventive medicine reports · 2023
    Review
  20. Effects of Wearing FFP2 Masks on SARS-CoV-2 Infection Rates in Classrooms.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Abrar Ahmad ChughtaiSchool of Public Health and Community Medicine, UNSW Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney 2052, Australia. abrar.chughtai@unsw.edu.au
Holly Seale
Chandini Raina MacIntyre
UNSW Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCurrently there is an ongoing debate and limited evidence on the use of masks and respirators for the prevention of respiratory infections in health care workers (HCWs). This study aimed to examine available policies and guidelines around the use of masks and respirators in HCWs and to describe areas of consistency between guidelines, as well as gaps in the recommendations, with reference to the WHO and the CDC guidelines.

methodsPolicies and guidelines related to mask and respirator use for the prevention of influenza, SARS and TB were examined. Guidelines from the World Health Organization (WHO), the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), three high-income countries and six low/middle-income countries were selected.

resultsUniform recommendations are made by the WHO and the CDC in regards to protecting HCWs against seasonal influenza (a mask for low risk situations and a respirator for high risk situations) and TB (use of a respirator). However, for pandemic influenza and SARS, the WHO recommends mask use in low risk and respirators in high risk situations, whereas, the CDC recommends respirators in both low and high risk situations. Amongst the nine countries reviewed, there are variations in the recommendations for all three diseases. While, some countries align with the WHO recommendations, others align with those made by the CDC. The choice of respirator and the level of filtering ability vary amongst the guidelines and the different diseases. Lastly, none of the policies discuss reuse, extended use or the use of cloth masks.

conclusionCurrently, there are significant variations in the policies and recommendations around mask and respirator use for protection against influenza, SARS and TB. These differences may reflect the scarcity of level-one evidence available to inform policy development. The lack of any guidelines on the use of cloth masks, despite widespread use in many low and middle-income countries, remains a policy gap. Health organizations and countries should jointly evaluate the available evidence, prioritize research to inform evidence gaps, and develop consistent policy on masks and respirator use in the health care setting.

Indexed as

Evidence-Based PracticeGuidelines as TopicOccupational HealthOrganizational PolicyPersonnel, HospitalHumansMasksRespiratory Protective Devices

Identifiers

PMID23725338
PMCPMC3693993
OpenAlexW2009656260

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.