Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32246890›Full record

SynthesisInfluenza and other respiratory viruses2020

Medical masks vs N95 respirators for preventing COVID-19 in healthcare workers: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

Jessica J Bartoszko, Mohammed Abdul Malik Farooqi, Waleed Alhazzani, Mark Loeb

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Influenza and other respiratory viruses, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 218 papers, 24 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
218citing papers in PubMed, 24 pooled it
59.7field-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

218 citing papers in PubMed, 24 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 494 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Guideline
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. CSO (Canadian Society of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery) position paper on rhinologic and skull base surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic.Journal of otolaryngology - head & neck surgery = Le Journal d'oto-rhino-laryngologie et de chirurgie cervico-faciale · 2020
    Guideline
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Guideline
  19. Guideline
  20. Pooled it

158 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 1 country.

Jessica J BartoszkoDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Mohammed Abdul Malik FarooqiDepartment of Medicine, Division of Respirology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Waleed AlhazzaniDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Mark LoebDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-2315-5390
Impact · CAMcMaster University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRespiratory protective devices are critical in protecting against infection in healthcare workers at high risk of novel 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19); however, recommendations are conflicting and epidemiological data on their relative effectiveness against COVID-19 are limited. PURPOSE: To compare medical masks to N95 respirators in preventing laboratory-confirmed viral infection and respiratory illness including coronavirus specifically in healthcare workers. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL from January 1, 2014, to March 9, 2020. Update of published search conducted from January 1, 1990, to December 9, 2014. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the protective effect of medical masks to N95 respirators in healthcare workers. DATA EXTRACTION: Reviewer pair independently screened, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence. DATA SYNTHESIS: Four RCTs were meta-analyzed adjusting for clustering. Compared with N95 respirators; the use of medical masks did not increase laboratory-confirmed viral (including coronaviruses) respiratory infection (OR 1.06; 95% CI 0.90-1.25; I LIMITATIONS: Indirectness and imprecision of available evidence.

conclusionsLow certainty evidence suggests that medical masks and N95 respirators offer similar protection against viral respiratory infection including coronavirus in healthcare workers during non-aerosol-generating care. Preservation of N95 respirators for high-risk, aerosol-generating procedures in this pandemic should be considered when in short supply.

Indexed as

Coronavirus InfectionsCOVID-19Health PersonnelHumansInfection ControlMasksOccupational ExposurePandemicsPneumonia, ViralRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRespiratory Protective DevicesRespiratory Tract InfectionsVentilators, MechanicalcoronavirusCOVID-19masksmeta-analysisN95 respiratorsSARS-CoV-2systematic review

Identifiers

PMID32246890
PMCPMC7298295
OpenAlexW3014615840

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.