Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35606393›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2022

Evaluation of different types of face masks to limit the spread of SARS-CoV-2: a modeling study.

Brian M Gurbaxani, Andrew N Hill, Prabasaj Paul, Pragati V Prasad, Rachel B Slayton

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Gurbaxani et al. Respond.American journal of public health · 2024
    Article
  6. COVID-19: did the masks work?Future microbiology · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Unpacking Cochrane's Update on Masks and COVID-19.American journal of public health · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Brian M Gurbaxani *Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Departments of Electrical and Computer Engineering and Industrial and Systems Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, 1600 Clifton Rd NE, Atlanta, GA, 30333, USA. buw8@cdc.gov.
Andrew N Hill *Division of Tuberculosis Elimination, National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, CDC, and Department Biostatistics and Bioinformatics Department, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, USA.
Prabasaj PaulCDC COVID-19 Response Team, Atlanta, USA.
Pragati V PrasadCDC COVID-19 Response Team, Atlanta, USA.
Rachel B SlaytonCDC COVID-19 Response Team, Atlanta, USA.
CDC Foundation · USCenters for Disease Control and Prevention · USEmory University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We expanded a published mathematical model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission with complex, age-structured transmission and with laboratory-derived source and wearer protection efficacy estimates for a variety of face masks to estimate their impact on COVID-19 incidence and related mortality in the United States. The model was also improved to allow realistic age-structured transmission with a pre-specified R0 of transmission, and to include more compartments and parameters, e.g. for groups such as detected and undetected asymptomatic infectious cases who mask up at different rates. When masks are used at typically-observed population rates of 80% for those ≥ 65 years and 60% for those < 65 years, face masks are associated with 69% (cloth) to 78% (medical procedure mask) reductions in cumulative COVID-19 infections and 82% (cloth) to 87% (medical procedure mask) reductions in related deaths over a 6-month timeline in the model, assuming a basic reproductive number of 2.5. If cloth or medical procedure masks' source control and wearer protection efficacies are boosted about 30% each to 84% and 60% by cloth over medical procedure masking, fitters, or braces, the COVID-19 basic reproductive number of 2.5 could be reduced to an effective reproductive number ≤ 1.0, and from 6.0 to 2.3 for a variant of concern similar to delta (B.1.617.2). For variants of concern similar to omicron (B.1.1.529) or the sub-lineage BA.2, modeled reductions in effective reproduction number due to similar high quality, high prevalence mask wearing is more modest (to 3.9 and 5.0 from an R

Indexed as

COVID-19SARS-CoV-2HumansMasksTextilesUnited States

Identifiers

PMID35606393
PMCPMC9125347
OpenAlexW4281289050

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.