ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2020
Double-zero-event studies matter: a re-evaluation of physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection for preventing person-to-person transmission of COVID-19 and its policy impact.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesHigh-quality meta-analyses on COVID-19 are in urgent demand for evidence-based decision making. However, conventional approaches exclude double-zero-event studies (DZS) from meta-analyses. We assessed whether including such studies impacts the conclusions in a recent systematic urgent review on prevention measures for preventing person-to-person transmission of COVID-19. Study designs and settings: We extracted data for meta-analyses containing DZS from a recent review that assessed the effects of physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection for preventing person-to-person transmission. A bivariate generalized linear mixed model was used to re-do the meta-analyses with DZS included. We compared the synthesized relative risks (RRs) of the three prevention measures, their 95% confidence intervals (CI), and significance tests (at the level of 0.05) including and excluding DZS.
resultsThe re-analyzed COVID-19 data containing DZS involved a total of 1,784 participants who were not considered in the original review. Including DZS noticeably changed the synthesized RRs and 95% CIs of several interventions. For the meta-analysis of the effect of physical distancing, the RR of COVID-19 decreased from 0.15 (95% CI, 0.03 to 0.73) to 0.07 (95% CI, 0.01 to 0.98). For several meta-analyses, the statistical significance of the synthesized RR was changed. The RR of eye protection with a physical distance of 2 m and the RR of physical distancing when using N95 respirators were no longer statistically significant after including DZS.
conclusionsDZS may contain useful information. Sensitivity analyses that include DZS in meta-analysis are recommended.
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.