SynthesisBMJ evidence-based medicine2025
Safety implications of mask use: a systematic review and evidence map.
Synthesis in BMJ evidence-based medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The pandemic legacy face mask: hidden barrier or insignificant factor in exercise performance?: A randomized crossover trial.Medicine · 2026Trial
- Aerosol emission rates from breathing, speaking, and speaking with a surgical mask.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Physiological responses to mask-associated COFrontiers in public health · 2026Review
- Protocol: a systematic review+ (SR+) to combine associative and mechanistic evidence on the efficacy of face masks in reducing transmission of respiratory diseases.Systematic reviews · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWidespread use of respiratory protection masks has become a critical component of public health response.
objectivesThis systematic review synthesises the evidence on the acute physiological, cognitive and psychological impacts associated with different types of masks and provides an evidence map of research gaps.
methodsA comprehensive search from 2000 to 2023 was conducted across multiple databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane databases, Scopus and PubMed). An umbrella systematic overview was conducted for physiological outcomes using existing systematic reviews. We conducted de novo systematic reviews for cognitive and psychological outcomes. Pairs of independent reviewers determined eligibility, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Certainty at an outcome level was appraised using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.
resultsThe search resulted in 13 370 potential citations, leading to the inclusion of nine systematic reviews for physiological outcomes (87 primary studies) and 10 primary studies for cognitive and psychological outcomes (3815 participants), with the majority of participants being healthy adults. Studies evaluating physiological outcomes demonstrated that various types of masks have little to no significant difference in heart rate (surgical mask (mean difference (MD): 0.96 (-1.01 to 2.93)), N95 mask (MD: 1.63 (-2.79 to 6.05)) and cloth mask (MD: -0.94 (-6.39 to 4.52))) or respiratory rate during rest or exercise (surgical mask (MD: -1.35 (-3.00 to 0.29)), N95 mask (MD: 0.10 (-3.10 to 3.29)) and cloth mask (MD: -2.57 (-6.44 to 1.29)) (low certainty for most outcomes)). Mask use may be associated with very small changes in minute ventilation (surgical mask (MD: -13.9 (-20.30 to -7.53)) and N95 mask (MD: -16.3 (-28.7 to -3.9))), tidal volume (surgical mask (MD: -0.14 (-0.23 to -0.05)) and N95 mask (MD: -0.10 (-0.33 to 0.13))), oxygen saturation (surgical mask (MD: -0.59% (-0.87 to -0.30)), N95 mask (MD: -0.35% (-0.75 to 0.05)) and cloth mask (MD: -0.50% (-1.23; 0.24))), carbon dioxide partial pressure (surgical mask (standardised MD (SMD): 1.17 (0.70 to 1.64)) and N95 mask (SMD: 0.43 (0.08 to 0.79))) and exercise performance (surgical mask (SMD: -0.12 (-0.39 to 0.15)), N95 mask (SMD: -0.42 (-0.76 to -0.08)) and cloth mask (SMD: -0.26 (-0.54 to 0.02)) (low certainty for most outcomes)). Studies evaluating cognitive outcomes showed mixed results. Some studies reported reduced mental workload, and others showed no significant effect or decreased performance. The impact on attention, errors and reaction time was variable. These studies were small and at moderate to high risk of bias. Evidence was insufficient to estimate the effect of mask use on psychological outcomes (claustrophobia, depression and anxiety) as these studies were small, non-longitudinal and at high risk of bias.
conclusionThis evidence map provides a comprehensive insight into the multifaceted impact of respiratory protection mask use, and highlights the limited certainty in the available body of evidence. This evidence map supports the development of future research agenda.
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.