ArticlePloS one2020
Comparative effectiveness of N95 respirators and surgical/face masks in preventing airborne infections in the era of SARS-CoV2 pandemic: A meta-analysis of randomized trials.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.
- Vitamin D supplementation to treat SARS-CoV-2 positive patients. Evidence from meta-analysis.Cardiology journal · 2022Pooled it
- Recommendations for Safe Dental Care: A Systematic Review of Clinical Practice Guidelines in the First Year of the COVID-19 Pandemic.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Pooled it
- Efficacy and feasibility of a novel semi-facial respirator with chitosan nanoparticles on the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in healthcare professionals: randomized controlled trial.BMC infectious diseases · 2024Trial
- Is face shape associated with fitness of respiratory personal protective equipment-N95 masks?Industrial health · 2026Article
- Effect of Face Masking on Transmission of SARS-CoV-2.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2024Article
- The Impact of Wearing Different Face Masks on Vigorous Physical Exercise Performance and Perceived Exertion among COVID-19 Infected vs. Uninfected Female Students.European journal of investigation in health, psychology and education · 2023Article
- Impact of disposable mask microplastics pollution on the aquatic environment and microalgae growth.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2023Article
- Spread of viruses, which measures are the most apt to control COVID-19?Infectious diseases now · 2023Review
- Microbial strategies for degradation of microplastics generated from COVID-19 healthcare waste.Environmental research · 2023Review
- Infection Prevention and Control of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 in Health Care Settings.Infectious disease clinics of North America · 2022Review
- Reply to Viner, A.; Ayrey, S. Comment on "Scheepers et al. Comparative Performance Testing of Respirator versus Surgical Mask Using a Water Droplet Spray Model.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Respirators in Healthcare: Material, Design, Regulatory, Environmental, and Economic Considerations for Clinical Efficacy.Global challenges (Hoboken, NJ) · 2022Review
- Article
- High Level Bioaerosol Protection against Infective Aerosols: How Medical Face Masks Compare against Respirators.The Canadian journal of infectious diseases & medical microbiology = Journal canadien des maladies infectieuses et de la microbiologie medicale · 2022Article
- Nanomaterials to combat SARS-CoV-2: Strategies to prevent, diagnose and treat COVID-19.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Review
- Disposal Behavior of Used Masks during the COVID-19 Pandemic in the Moroccan Community: Potential Environmental Impact.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Environmental challenges induced by extensive use of face masks during COVID-19: A review and potential solutions.Environmental challenges (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2021Review
- Study of the use of a personalized peripheral sealing device on surgical face masks in high-risk situations against COVID-19.PloS one · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecently, several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have evaluated the effect of N95 respirators compared with medical masks to protect against acute respiratory infections. However, these studies are limited by modest sample sizes and inconclusive results. Therefore, the goal of the present study was to review the relevant and available published RCTs with the aid of the increased power of meta-analytic methods in order to assess the effectiveness of medical masks and N95 respirators in reducing the risk of respiratory infections.
methodsThis meta-analysis follows the recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement for conducting and reporting results. We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane databases from inception through April 1, 2020 to identify potentially relevant studies. Two authors (LS and JS) independently searched the titles and abstracts of the potentially eligible articles. They independently retrieved required data from the eligible trials; the data were initially tabulated for statistical analysis. Two authors (JRL and LS) independently assessed the methodological quality of the included RCTs using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias.
resultsSix articles met the inclusion criteria. The pooled analysis showed that N95 respirators did not reduce the risk of infection with respiratory viruses compared with medical/surgical masks (5.7% vs. 7.9%; RR = 1.12; 95% CI: 0.88-1.41; p = 0.36); however, there was no statistically significant difference in laboratory-confirmed influenza between N95 and medical masks (RR = 0.91; 95% CI: 0.77-1.07; p = 0.26). Medical masks provided similar protection against other viruses, including coronavirus (RR = 0.74; 95% CI: 0.32-1.73; p = 0.49). Respiratory illness, as well as influenza-like illness were less frequently observed with N95 respirators.
conclusionsOur meta-analysis suggests that there are insufficient data to definitively determine whether N95 respirators are superior to medical masks in protection against transmissible acute respiratory infections. Further randomized trials are necessary to compare the above methods of respiratory protection in the context of COVID-19 incidence.
Indexed as
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.