Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26462473›Full record

ReviewBMC infectious diseases2015

Review of economic evaluations of mask and respirator use for protection against respiratory infection transmission.

Shohini Mukerji, C Raina MacIntyre, Anthony T Newall

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC infectious diseases, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 33% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. The use of masks to protect against respiratory infections: An umbrella review.Enfermedades infecciosas y microbiologia clinica (English ed.) · 2021
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. The use of masks to protect against respiratory infections: an umbrella review.Enfermedades infecciosas y microbiologia clinica (English ed.) · 2020
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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.

Shohini MukerjiSchool of Public Health and Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia. s.mukerji@unsw.edu.au.
C Raina MacIntyreSchool of Public Health and Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia. r.macintyre@unsw.edu.au.
Anthony T NewallSchool of Public Health and Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia. a.newall@unsw.edu.au.
UNSW Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere has been increasing debate surrounding mask and respirator interventions to control respiratory infection transmission in both healthcare and community settings. As decision makers are considering the recommendations they should evaluate how to provide the most efficient protection strategies with minimum costs. The aim of this review is to identify and evaluate the existing economic evaluation literature in this area and to offer advice on how future evaluations on this topic should be conducted.

methodsWe searched the Scopus database for all literature on economic evaluation of mask or respirator use to control respiratory infection transmission. Reference lists from the identified studies were also manually searched. Seven studies met our inclusion criteria from the initial 806 studies identified by the search strategy and our manual search.

resultsFive studies considered interventions for seasonal and/or pandemic influenza, with one also considering SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome). The other two studies focussed on tuberculosis transmission control interventions. The settings and methodologies of the studies varied greatly. No low-middle income settings were identified. Only one of the reviewed studies cited clinical evidence to inform their mask/respirator intervention effectiveness parameters. Mask and respirator interventions were generally reported by the study authors to be cost saving or cost-effective when compared to no intervention or other control measures, however the evaluations had important limitations.

conclusionsGiven the large cost differential between masks and respirators, there is a need for more comprehensive economic evaluations to compare the relative costs and benefits of these interventions in situations and settings where alternative options are potentially applicable. There are at present insufficient well conducted cost-effectiveness studies to inform decision-makers on the value for money of alternative mask/respirator options.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisHumansInfluenza, HumanMasksPandemicsSevere Acute Respiratory SyndromeTuberculosisVentilators, Mechanical

Identifiers

PMID26462473
PMCPMC4605092
OpenAlexW1943929777

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.