Valid or Invalid?
Offeddu V, et al.
«This systematic review and meta-analysis quantified the protective effect of facemask and respirators against respiratory infections among healthcare workers. Relevant articles were retrieved from Pubmed, EMBASE, and Web of Science. Meta-analyses were conducted to calculate pooled estimates. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) indicated a protective effect of masks and respirators against clinical respiratory illness (CRI) (risk ratio [RR] = 0.59; 95% confidence interval [CI]:0.46-0.77) and influenza-like illness (ILI) (RR = 0.34; 95% CI:0.14-0.82). Compared to masks, N95 respirators conferred superior protection against CRI (RR = 0.47; 95% CI: 0.36-0.62) and laboratory-confirmed bacterial (RR = 0.46; 95% CI: 0.34-0.62), but not viral infection or ILI. Meta-analysis of observational studies provided evidence of a protective effect of masks (OR = 0.13; 95% CI: 0.03-0.62) and respirators (OR = 0.12; 95% CI: 0.06-0.26) against severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). This systematic review and meta-analysis supports the use of respiratory protection. However, the existing evidence is sparse and findings are inconsistent within and across studies. Multicentre RCT with standardized protocols conducted outside epidemic periods would help to clarify the circumstances under which the use of masks or respirators is most warranted.»
Masks prevent clinical respiratory illness (CRI) risk by 41% (RR=0.59).
Masks prevent influenza-like illness (ILI) risk by 66% (RR=0.34).
N95 respirators decrease chance of CRI by 53% (RR=0.47).
N95 respirators decrease chance of laboratory-confirmed bacterial infections by 54% (RR=0.46).
Masks prevent severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) risk by 87% (OR=0.13).
N95 respirators prevent SARS by 88% (OR=0.12)
- Organism: Humans
added it 3 years ago on Mar 26, 2020ranked