Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33303066›Full record

ArticleEuro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin2020

Community use of face masks and similar barriers to prevent respiratory illness such as COVID-19: a rapid scoping review.

Julii Brainard, Natalia R Jones, Iain R Lake, Lee Hooper, Paul R Hunter

Open access · diamondAbstract readScoping Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 54 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
54citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
8.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

54 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 87 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Vaccination status and outcomes in critical COVID-19 patients.Jornal brasileiro de pneumologia : publicacao oficial da Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisilogia · 2024
    Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Julii BrainardThe Norwich School of Medicine, University of East Anglia, Norwich, Norfolk, United Kingdom.
Natalia R JonesSchool of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, Norfolk, United Kingdom.
Iain R LakeSchool of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, Norfolk, United Kingdom.
Lee HooperThe Norwich School of Medicine, University of East Anglia, Norwich, Norfolk, United Kingdom.
Paul R HunterThe Norwich School of Medicine, University of East Anglia, Norwich, Norfolk, United Kingdom.
University of East Anglia · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BackgroundEvidence for face-mask wearing in the community to protect against respiratory disease is unclear.AimTo assess effectiveness of wearing face masks in the community to prevent respiratory disease, and recommend improvements to this evidence base.MethodsWe systematically searched Scopus, Embase and MEDLINE for studies evaluating respiratory disease incidence after face-mask wearing (or not). Narrative synthesis and random-effects meta-analysis of attack rates for primary and secondary prevention were performed, subgrouped by design, setting, face barrier type, and who wore the mask. Preferred outcome was influenza-like illness. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) quality assessment was undertaken and evidence base deficits described.Results33 studies (12 randomised control trials (RCTs)) were included. Mask wearing reduced primary infection by 6% (odds ratio (OR): 0.94; 95% CI: 0.75-1.19 for RCTs) to 61% (OR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.32-2.27; OR: 0.39; 95% CI: 0.18-0.84 and OR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.45-0.85 for cohort, case-control and cross-sectional studies respectively). RCTs suggested lowest secondary attack rates when both well and ill household members wore masks (OR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.48-1.37). While RCTs might underestimate effects due to poor compliance and controls wearing masks, observational studies likely overestimate effects, as mask wearing might be associated with other risk-averse behaviours. GRADE was low or very low quality.ConclusionWearing face masks may reduce primary respiratory infection risk, probably by 6-15%. It is important to balance evidence from RCTs and observational studies when their conclusions widely differ and both are at risk of significant bias. COVID-19-specific studies are required.

Indexed as

Eye Protective DevicesMasksCoronavirus InfectionsCOVID-19HumansInfluenza, HumanPicornaviridae InfectionsRespiratory Protective DevicesRespiratory Tract InfectionsSARS-CoV-2Tuberculosiscoronavirusface maskHajjinfluenza-like-illnessrespiratory infection

Identifiers

PMID33303066
PMCPMC7730486
OpenAlexW3082176204

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.