ArticlePLOS global public health2024
Evolution of WHO COVID-19 mask guidelines amid intense demands for rapid advice.
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.
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.
- Factors influencing mask use and physical distancing for COVID-19: A qualitative evidence synthesis.Journal of public health in Africa · 2025Review
- From evidence to policy: WHO's COVID-19 infection prevention and control guideline development process.Journal of public health in Africa · 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
13 authors.
Funding
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
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.