Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33070412›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of clinical practice2021

Modelling the impact of the mandatory use of face coverings on public transport and in retail outlets in the UK on COVID-19-related infections, hospital admissions and mortality.

Adrian H Heald, Michael Stedman, Zixing Tian, Pensee Wu, Anthony A Fryer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of clinical practice, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

5 authors.

Adrian H HealdDepartment of Diabetes and Endocrinology, Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Salford, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9537-4050
Michael StedmanRes Consortium, Andover, UK.
Zixing TianThe School of Medicine, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Pensee WuSchool of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, UK.
Anthony A FryerSchool of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8678-0404

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe rapid spread of the pandemic caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2/)(COVID-19) virus resulted in governments around the world instigating a range of measures, including mandating the wearing of face coverings on public transport/in retail outlets.

methodsWe developed a sequential assessment of the risk reduction provided by face coverings using a step-by-step approach. The UK Office of National Statistics (ONS) Population Survey data were utilised to determine the baseline total number of community-derived infections. These were linked to reported hospital admissions/hospital deaths to create case admission risk ratio and admission-related fatality rate. We evaluated published evidence to establish an infection risk reduction for face coverings. We calculated an Infection Risk Score (IRS) for a number of common activities and related it to the effectiveness of reducing infection and its consequences, with a face covering, and evaluated their effect when applied to different infection rates over 3 months from July 24, 2020, when face coverings were made compulsory in England on public transport/retail outlets.

resultsWe show that only 7.3% of all community-based infection risk is associated with public transport/retail outlets. In the week of July 24, The reported weekly community infection rate was 29 400 new cases at the start (July 24). The rate of growth in hospital admissions and deaths for England was around -15%/week, suggesting the infection rate, R, in the most vulnerable populations was just above 0.8. In this situation, average infections over the evaluated 13 week follow-up period, would be 9517/week with face covering of 40% effectiveness, thus, reducing average infections by 844/week, hospital admissions by 8/week and deaths by 0.6/week; a fall of 9% over the period total. If, however, the R-value rises to 1.0, then, average community infections would stay at 29 400/week and mandatory face coverings could reduce average weekly infections by 3930, hospital admissions by 36 and deaths by 2.9/week; a 13% reduction. If the R-value rose and stayed at 1.2, then, expected average community-derived hospital admissions would be 975/week and 40% effective face coverings would reduce this by 167/week and reduce possible expected hospital deaths from 80/week to 66/week. These reductions should be seen in the context that there was an average of 102 000/week all-cause hospital emergency admissions in England in June and 8900 total reported deaths in the week ending August 7, 2020.

conclusionWe have illustrated that the policy on mandatory use of face coverings in retail outlets/on public transport may have been very well followed, but may be of limited value in reducing hospital admissions and deaths, at least at the time that it was introduced, unless infections begin to rise faster than currently seen. The impact appears small compared with all other sources of risk, thereby raising questions regarding the effectiveness of the policy.

Indexed as

COVID-19Cross InfectionEnglandHumansSARS-CoV-2United Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID33070412
PMCPMC7645947

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.