Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39514471›Full record

ArticlePLOS global public health2024

Evolution of WHO COVID-19 mask guidelines amid intense demands for rapid advice.

Nathan Ford, Hannah Hamilton Hurwitz, Roger Chou, Vicky Willet, May Chu, Mitchell J Schwaber, Kathleen Dunn, João Paulo Toledo, Alice Simniceanu, Madison Moon and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLOS global public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

13 authors.

Nathan FordWorld Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1482-3967
Hannah Hamilton HurwitzWorld Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0753-3400
Roger ChouPacific Northwest Evidence-based Practice Center and the Department of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, United States of America.
Vicky WilletWorld Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9898-4081
May ChuColorado School of Public Health, Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado, United States of America.
Mitchell J SchwaberNational Center for Infection Control, Israel Ministry of Health, Jerusalem, Israel.
Kathleen DunnWorld Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
João Paulo ToledoWorld Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Alice SimniceanuWorld Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Madison MoonWorld Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Rebekah ThomasWorld Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Benedetta AllegranziWorld Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
April BallerWorld Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

During a health emergency, there is an urgent need to rapidly develop guidelines that meet minimum quality standards, as exemplified by the development of WHO guidelines on mask use in health care and community settings during the COVID-19 pandemic. Between January 2020 and October 2023, WHO developed 21 guideline updates on the use of masks as part of infection prevention and control (IPC) practices. Guideline developers had to deal with an ever-growing volume of evidence of variable quality. Initially, indirect evidence drawn from other severe respiratory illnesses and established minimum requirements for IPC were used. As direct evidence began to emerge, WHO commissioned a living systematic review on mask use in June 2020, which formed the basis of evidence-to-decision making. As more evidence became available, additional considerations were incorporated into the process of recommendation formulation, including harms, acceptability, feasibility and resource use. Target populations for the mask guidelines expanded to include the general public, including children. A broad range of disciplines supported guideline development, including IPC, epidemiology, infectious diseases, occupational health, engineering, pneumology, paediatrics, and water, sanitation and hygiene, as well as civil society representatives. Additional expertise was engaged in the areas of ventilation and aerobiology to expand the range of perspectives regarding modes of transmission. Despite challenges, the experience of rapidly and regularly updating advice on mask use during an emergency health response has shown that it is possible to apply the minimum standards for ensuring the guideline methodology is trustworthy and transparent, with increasing rigor over time as evidence improves. Overall, the experience of developing guidelines during the COVID-19 pandemic underscores the importance of adapting to evolving evidence, incorporating diverse perspectives, and maintaining transparency to ensure a rigorous methodology and in return guideline trustworthiness and effectiveness.

Identifiers

PMID39514471
PMCPMC11548717

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.