ArticleEBioMedicine2024
Relative efficacy of masks and respirators as source control for viral aerosol shedding from people infected with SARS-CoV-2: a controlled human exhaled breath aerosol experimental study.
Article in EBioMedicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Minimising the duration of N95 respirator use during hospital SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks: A mixed-effects analysis of post-screening infection reduction.Infection prevention in practice · 2025Article
- Comparative Assessment of Viral Load Retention in Surgical and Fabric Masks Worn by COVID-19 Patients.Viruses · 2025Article
- Mask wearing by COVID-19 index cases reduces SARS-CoV-2 transmission to household contacts.Epidemiology and infection · 2025Article
- Comment to: Face mask use and viral load in patients with mild symptoms of COVID-19.Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2025Article
- The time has come to protect healthcare workers and patients from aerosol transmissible disease.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTight-fitting masks and respirators, in manikin studies, improved aerosol source control compared to loose-fitting masks. Whether this translates to humans is not known.
methodsWe compared efficacy of masks (cloth and surgical) and respirators (KN95 and N95) as source control for SARS-CoV-2 viral load in exhaled breath of volunteers with COVID-19 using a controlled human experimental study. Volunteers (N = 44, 43% female) provided paired unmasked and masked breath samples allowing computation of source-control factors.
findingsAll masks and respirators significantly reduced exhaled viral load, without fit tests or training. A duckbill N95 reduced exhaled viral load by 98% (95% CI: 97%-99%), and significantly outperformed a KN95 (p < 0.001) as well as cloth and surgical masks. Cloth masks outperformed a surgical mask (p = 0.027) and the tested KN95 (p = 0.014).
interpretationThese results suggest that N95 respirators could be the standard of care in nursing homes and healthcare settings when respiratory viral infections are prevalent in the community and healthcare-associated transmission risk is elevated.
fundingDefense Advanced Research Projects Agency, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and The Flu Lab.
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.