ReviewJournal of occupational health2021
Literature review to integrate information to assist workers to select masks even at workplaces without occupational health personnel.
Review in Journal of occupational health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Adherence to mask-wearing and its impact on the incidence and deaths of viral respiratory infectious diseases: a systematic review, meta-analysis and modelling study.BMJ global health · 2025Pooled it
- Literature review to integrate information to assist workers to select masks even at workplaces without occupational health personnel.Journal of occupational health · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWith the COVID-19 pandemic, the idea of universal mask wearing to prevent infecting others when one becomes infected has prevailed among people. In general, any workplace is not exempt and workers are required to wear a mask while working at the sites.
objectivesThis study aims to integrate information to assist workers to select effective protectors for the prevention of droplet infection even at workplaces without occupational health personnel.
methodsA total of 94 studies were included in this study: 91 studies were identified in MEDLINE, which was used for the literature search, and an additional three studies were identified from other information sources. The studies were checked to eliminate duplication and narrowed down to 31 based on the titles and abstracts. The contents of the 31 studies were read through and then 19 studies were extracted for careful reading. RESULTS AND
conclusionsRegarding the protectors used at workplaces, it was suggested that (1) workers continue to use respiratory protectors as needed at sites where respiratory protectors such as an N95 respirator had to be used even before the spread of COVID-19 and (2) wear surgical masks, multi-layer cloth masks, or hybrid fabric masks made of several types of fabrics that are recommended in terms of preventing dissemination of droplets and protecting against inhalation of droplets, selected according to the working conditions, taking account of air permeability, breathability, and durability.
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.