Community use of face masks and similar barriers to prevent respiratory illness such as COVID-19: A rapid scoping review
Eurosurveillance, ISSN: 1560-7917, Vol: 25, Issue: 49
2020
- 61Citations
- 163Captures
- 19Mentions
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations61
- Citation Indexes51
- 47
- CrossRef22
- Policy Citations10
- Policy Citation10
- Captures163
- Readers163
- 163
- Mentions19
- News Mentions18
- News18
- Blog Mentions1
- Blog1
Most Recent Blog
Masks Revisited
A recent Cochrane review, limited in scope and problematic in methodology, does not show that masks do not work, despite common misreporting. The post Masks Revisited first appeared on Science-Based Medicine.
Most Recent News
Masks Found To Be Ineffective After First Omicron Wave: New Study
Masks Found To Be Ineffective After First Omicron Wave: New Study Authored by Megan Redshaw, J.D. via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours), At the onset
Review Description
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.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85098035600&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917.es.2020.25.49.2000725; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33303066; https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.49.2000725; https://dx.doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917.es.2020.25.49.2000725
European Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (ECDC)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know