Trial reportThe Journal of international medical research2017
Herd protection effect of N95 respirators in healthcare workers.
Trial report in The Journal of international medical research, 2017. 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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Masks and respirators for prevention of respiratory infections: a state of the science review.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of evidence-based medicine · 2020Pooled it
- Face masks for respiratory viral illness prevention in healthcare settings: a concise systemic review and meta-analysis.Iranian journal of microbiology · 2023Review
- N95 respirator and surgical mask effectiveness against respiratory viral illnesses in the healthcare setting: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2021Article
- Face Mask Assistant: Detection of Face Mask Service Stage Based on Mobile Phone.IEEE sensors journal · 2021Article
- Comparative efficacy of respiratory personal protective equipment against viral respiratory infectious diseases in healthcare workers: a network meta-analysis.Public health · 2021Review
- Controversies in Respiratory Protective Equipment Selection and Use During COVID-19.Journal of hospital medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective To determine if there was herd protection conferred to unprotected healthcare workers (HCWs) by N95 respirators worn by colleagues. Methods Data were analysed from a prospective cluster randomized clinical trial conducted in Beijing, China between 1 December 2008 and 15 January 2009. A minimum compliance level (MCL) of N95 respirators for prevention of clinical respiratory illness (CRI) was set based on various compliance cut-offs. The CRI rates were compared between compliant (≥MCL) and non-compliant (<MCL) N95 wearers by ward, and between non-compliant wearers and control subjects who did not wear masks. Results Data were analysed from 949 HCWs who wore N95 respirators and 125 HCWs who did not wear masks. At 50% MCL there were no significant differences in the CRI rates between compliant and non-compliant N95 wearers by ward. In multivariate analysis, the CRI rate in non-compliant HCWs was significantly lower compared with controls (relative risk 0.26; 95% confidence interval 0.08, 0.82). Conclusion This study suggests herd protection from use of N95 respirators by colleagues within a hospital ward.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.