Efficacy of face mask in preventing respiratory virus transmission: A systematic review and meta-analysis

  1. Mingming Liang
  2. Liang Gao
  3. Ce Cheng
  4. Qin Zhou
  5. John Patrick Uy
  6. Kurt Heiner
  7. Chenyu Sun

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.04.03.20051649: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Regarding this meta-analysis, a comprehensive searching strategy was carefully designed to select eligible studies from multiple electronic databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), VIP (Chinese) database.
    PubMed
    suggested: (PubMed, RRID:SCR_004846)
    Cochrane Library
    suggested: (Cochrane Library, RRID:SCR_013000)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    Also, our results of sub-group analysis showed an insignificant reduction of risk of H1N1 by wearing masks, which could be explained by the limitations of the included studies including relatively small sample size, and confounding factors such as prior influenza vaccinations. Jeager et al. 2009 indicated that overall PPE use among HCWs was low as more than 25% reported never wearing PPE and only 17% reported wearing masks with every H1N1 patient encounter, which could significantly lower the sample size of data being analyzed [27]. Also, the same study indicated that majority of HCWs had received seasonal influenza vaccination, which could play a role of confounding factor contributing to protective effects toward control group. Additionally, it was noted that during acute outbreak of H1N1, specific prevention recommendations and measures lagged behind H1N1 exposures. This could suggest that HCWs may already have been infected before wearing masks, further decreasing the powers of data collected. Regarding the relationship of different medical fields and practice settings and influenza, Santo el al mentioned that physicians and registered nurses had higher risks of infection compared with outpatient and allied health staff, which could be the result of a higher risk of exposures [48]. However, Jeagers did not conclude the same findings, which could be explained by poor techniques of using PPE (such as poorly fitted N95 masks) among allied health staff [27]. Wearing mask has ...

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  2. Version published to 10.1016/j.tmaid.2020.101751
  3. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.04.03.20051649: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.RandomizationIn the subgroups based on different study designs , protective effects of wearing mask were significant in cluster randomized trials and observational studies .BlindingAlthough RCT, in general, is the best study design for assessing the effectiveness of interventions [11], it should be noted that many cluster randomized trials are significantly different from ordinary RCTs (control, randomization and blind).Power Analysisnot detected.Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Regarding this meta-analysis , a comprehensive searching strategy was carefully designed to select eligible studies from multiple electronic databases , including PubMed , Web of Science , Cochrane Library , and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure ( CNKI) , VIP ( Chinese ) database.
    PubMed
    suggested: (PubMed, SCR_004846)
          <div style="margin-bottom:8px">
        <div><b>Cochrane Library</b></div>
        <div>suggested: (Cochrane Library, <a href="https://scicrunch.org/resources/Any/search?q=SCR_013000">SCR_013000</a>)</div>
      </div>
    </td></tr><tr><td style="min-width:100px;vertical-align:top;border-bottom:1px solid lightgray">The meta-analysis was performed using Revman 5.3.5 ( http://tech.cochrane.org/revman ) [ 15] .</td><td style="min-width:100px;border-bottom:1px solid lightgray">
      <div style="margin-bottom:8px">
        <div><b>Revman</b></div>
        <div>suggested: (RevMan, <a href="https://scicrunch.org/resources/Any/search?q=SCR_003581">SCR_003581</a>)</div>
      </div>
    </td></tr><tr><td style="min-width:100px;vertical-align:top;border-bottom:1px solid lightgray">Conclusion Our study showed the effectiveness of wearing masks in protecting HCWs from RVIs, including SARS-CoV-2.</td><td style="min-width:100px;border-bottom:1px solid lightgray">
      <div style="margin-bottom:8px">
        <div><b>SARS-CoV-2</b></div>
        <div>suggested: (Sino Biological Cat# 40143-R019, <a href="https://scicrunch.org/resources/Any/search?q=AB_2827973">AB_2827973</a>)</div>
      </div>
    </td></tr></table>

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore is not a substitute for expert review. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers) in the manuscript, and detects sentences that appear to be missing RRIDs. SciScore also checks to make sure that rigor criteria are addressed by authors. It does this by detecting sentences that discuss criteria such as blinding or power analysis. SciScore does not guarantee that the rigor criteria that it detects are appropriate for the particular study. Instead it assists authors, editors, and reviewers by drawing attention to sections of the manuscript that contain or should contain various rigor criteria and key resources. For details on the results shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  4. Version published to 10.1101/2020.04.03.20051649 on medRxiv