Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29140516›Full record

SynthesisClinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America2017

Effectiveness of Masks and Respirators Against Respiratory Infections in Healthcare Workers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Vittoria Offeddu, Chee Fu Yung, Mabel Sheau Fong Low, Clarence C Tam

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 160 papers, 20 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
160citing papers in PubMed, 20 pooled it
32.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

160 citing papers in PubMed, 20 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 313 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. The use of masks to protect against respiratory infections: An umbrella review.Enfermedades infecciosas y microbiologia clinica (English ed.) · 2021
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

100 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Vittoria OffedduSaw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore.
Chee Fu YungInfectious Disease Service, Department of Paediatrics, KK Women's and Children's Hospital, Singapore.
Mabel Sheau Fong LowSaw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore.
Clarence C TamSaw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore.
National University of Singapore · SGKK Women's and Children's Hospital · SG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This systematic review and meta-analysis quantified the protective effect of facemasks and respirators against respiratory infections among healthcare workers. Relevant articles were retrieved from Pubmed, EMBASE, and Web of Science. Meta-analyses were conducted to calculate pooled estimates. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) indicated a protective effect of masks and respirators against clinical respiratory illness (CRI) (risk ratio [RR] = 0.59; 95% confidence interval [CI]:0.46-0.77) and influenza-like illness (ILI) (RR = 0.34; 95% CI:0.14-0.82). Compared to masks, N95 respirators conferred superior protection against CRI (RR = 0.47; 95% CI: 0.36-0.62) and laboratory-confirmed bacterial (RR = 0.46; 95% CI: 0.34-0.62), but not viral infections or ILI. Meta-analysis of observational studies provided evidence of a protective effect of masks (OR = 0.13; 95% CI: 0.03-0.62) and respirators (OR = 0.12; 95% CI: 0.06-0.26) against severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). This systematic review and meta-analysis supports the use of respiratory protection. However, the existing evidence is sparse and findings are inconsistent within and across studies. Multicentre RCTs with standardized protocols conducted outside epidemic periods would help to clarify the circumstances under which the use of masks or respirators is most warranted.

Indexed as

MasksVentilators, MechanicalHealth PersonnelHumansInfection ControlInfluenza, HumanObservational Studies as TopicOccupational ExposureRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRespiratory Protective DevicesRespiratory Tract InfectionsSevere Acute Respiratory SyndromeVirus DiseasesFacemasksinfluenzaN95 respiratorsrespiratory infectionssevere acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)

Identifiers

PMID29140516
PMCPMC7108111
OpenAlexW2743706615

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.