Community use of facemasks and similar barriers to prevent respiratory illness such as COVID-19: A rapid scoping review
Tools
ToolsBrainard, Julii, Jones, Natalia R., Lake, Iain R., Hooper, Lee and Hunter, Paul R. (2020) Community use of facemasks and similar barriers to prevent respiratory illness such as COVID-19: A rapid scoping review. Eurosurveillance, 25 (49). ISSN 1560-7917
|
PDF (Accepted_Manuscript)
- Accepted Version
Download (318kB) | Preview |
Abstract
Background: Evidence for face-mask wearing in the community to protect against respiratory disease is unclear. Aim: To assess effectiveness of wearing face masks in the community to prevent respiratory disease, and recommend improvements to this evidence base. Methods: We systematically searched Scopus, Embase and MEDLINE for studies evaluating respiratory disease incidence after face-mask wearing (or not). Narrative synthesis and random-effects metaanalysis of attack rates for primary and secondary prevention were performed, subgrouped by design, setting, face barrier type, and who wore the mask. Preferred outcome was influenza-like illness. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) quality assessment was undertaken and evidence base deficits described. Results: 33 studies (12 randomised control trials (RCTs)) were included. Mask wearing reduced primary infection by 6% (odds ratio (OR): 0.94; 95% CI: 0.75-1.19 for RCTs) to 61% (OR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.32-2.27; OR: 0.39; 95% CI: 0.18-0.84 and OR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.45-0.85 for cohort, case-control and cross-sectional studies respectively). RCTs suggested lowest secondary attack rates when both well and ill household members wore masks (OR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.48-1.37). While RCTs might underestimate effects due to poor compliance and controls wearing masks, observational studies likely overestimate effects, as mask wearing might be associated with other risk-averse behaviours. GRADE was low or very low quality. Conclusion: Wearing face masks may reduce primary respiratory infection risk, probably by 6-15%. It is important to balance evidence from RCTs and observational studies when their conclusions widely differ and both are at risk of significant bias. COVID-19-specific studies are required.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | coronavirus,facemask,influenza-like-illness,hajj,respiratory infection |
| Faculty \ School: | Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences > Norwich Medical School Faculty of Science > School of Environmental Sciences Faculty of Science > Tyndall Centre for Climatic Change |
| Related URLs: | |
| Depositing User: | LivePure Connector |
| Date Deposited: | 27 Aug 2020 00:00 |
| Last Modified: | 06 Apr 2021 01:57 |
| URI: | https://ueaeprints.uea.ac.uk/id/eprint/76669 |
| DOI: | 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.49.2000725 |
Actions (login required)
 |
View Item |