Mask-associated ‘de novo’ headache in healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic

  1. José María Ramirez-Moreno
  2. David Ceberino
  3. Alberto Gonzalez Plata
  4. Belen Rebollo
  5. Pablo Macias Sedas
  6. Roshan Hariramani
  7. Ana M Roa
  8. Ana B Constantino

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

The pandemic caused by the new coronavirus (COVID-19) has changed care activities of health professionals. We analysed the possible association between the appearance of ‘de novo’ headache according to the type of mask used, the related factors and the impact of the cephalalgia on health professionals.

Methods

Cross-sectional study in a tertiary hospital in Extremadura, Spain. We provided an online questionnaire to healthcare workers during the period of maximum incidence of COVID-19 in our setting.

Results

The subjects are n=306, 244 women (79.7%), with an average age of 43 years (range 23–65). Of the total, 129 (42.2%) were physicians, 112 (36.6%) nurses and 65 (21.2%) other health workers. 208 (79.7%) used surgical masks and 53 (20.3%) used filter masks. Of all those surveyed, 158 (51.6%) presented ‘de novo’ headache. The occurrence of a headache was independently associated with the use of a filter mask, OR 2.14 (95% CI 1.07 to 4.32); being a nurse, OR 2.09 (95% CI 1.18 to 3.72) or another health worker, OR 6.94 (95% CI 3.01 to 16.04); or having a history of asthma, OR 0.29 (95% CI 0.09 to 0.89). According to the type of mask used, there were differences in headache intensity, and the impact of a headache in the subjects who used a filter mask was worse in all the aspects evaluated.

Conclusion

The appearance of ‘de novo’ headache is associated with the use of filter masks and is more frequent in certain healthcare workers, causing a greater occupational, family, personal and social impact.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1136/oemed-2020-106956
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.08.07.20167957: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementConsent: It included a request for voluntary collaboration, information on the reason for the survey, instructions for completing the questionnaire and consent.
    IRB: The data analysed is restricted to the study investigators, health authorities and the Clinical Research Ethics Committee, when required, in accordance with current legislation.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    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: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    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.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.08.07.20167957v1 on medRxiv