Effectiveness of wearing masks during the COVID-19 outbreak in cohort and case-control studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis

IF 2.9 4区 医学 Q2 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM
Idevaldo Floriano1, Antônio Silvinato1,2, Hélio Arthur Bacha3, Alexandre Naime Barbosa4, Suzana Tanni5, Wanderley Marques Bernardo2,6
{"title":"Effectiveness of wearing masks during the COVID-19 outbreak in cohort and case-control studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Idevaldo Floriano1, Antônio Silvinato1,2, Hélio Arthur Bacha3, Alexandre Naime Barbosa4, Suzana Tanni5, Wanderley Marques Bernardo2,6","doi":"10.36416/1806-3756/e20230003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of wearing a mask to prevent COVID-19 infection. Methods: This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort and case-control studies, considering the best level of evidence available. Electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Clinical Trials.gov) were searched to identify studies that evaluated the effectiveness of wearing masks compared with that of not wearing them during the COVID-19 pandemic. Risk of bias and quality of evidence were assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Results: Of the 1,028 studies identified, 9 met the inclusion criteria (2 cohort studies and 7 case-control studies) and were included in the analysis. The meta-analysis using cohort studies alone showed statistically significant differences, wearing a cloth mask decreased by 21% [RD = −0.21 (95% CI, −0.34 to −0.07); I2 = 0%; p = 0,002] the risk of COVID-19 infection, but the quality of evidence was low. Regarding case-control studies, wearing a surgical mask reduced the chance of COVID-19 infection [OR = 0.51 (95% CI, 0.37-0.70); I2 = 47%; p = 0.0001], as did wearing an N95 respirator mask [OR = 0.31 (95% CI, 0.20-0.49); I2 = 0%; p = 0.00001], both with low quality of evidence. Conclusions: In this systematic review with meta-analysis, we showed the effectiveness of wearing masks in the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection regardless of the type of mask (disposable surgical mask, common masks, including cloth masks, or N95 respirators), although the studies evaluated presented with low quality of evidence and important biases.","PeriodicalId":14845,"journal":{"name":"Jornal Brasileiro De Pneumologia","volume":"1 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Jornal Brasileiro De Pneumologia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36416/1806-3756/e20230003","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of wearing a mask to prevent COVID-19 infection. Methods: This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort and case-control studies, considering the best level of evidence available. Electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Clinical Trials.gov) were searched to identify studies that evaluated the effectiveness of wearing masks compared with that of not wearing them during the COVID-19 pandemic. Risk of bias and quality of evidence were assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Results: Of the 1,028 studies identified, 9 met the inclusion criteria (2 cohort studies and 7 case-control studies) and were included in the analysis. The meta-analysis using cohort studies alone showed statistically significant differences, wearing a cloth mask decreased by 21% [RD = −0.21 (95% CI, −0.34 to −0.07); I2 = 0%; p = 0,002] the risk of COVID-19 infection, but the quality of evidence was low. Regarding case-control studies, wearing a surgical mask reduced the chance of COVID-19 infection [OR = 0.51 (95% CI, 0.37-0.70); I2 = 47%; p = 0.0001], as did wearing an N95 respirator mask [OR = 0.31 (95% CI, 0.20-0.49); I2 = 0%; p = 0.00001], both with low quality of evidence. Conclusions: In this systematic review with meta-analysis, we showed the effectiveness of wearing masks in the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection regardless of the type of mask (disposable surgical mask, common masks, including cloth masks, or N95 respirators), although the studies evaluated presented with low quality of evidence and important biases.
队列和病例对照研究中 COVID-19 爆发期间佩戴口罩的效果:系统回顾和荟萃分析
摘要 目的评估佩戴口罩预防 COVID-19 感染的效果。方法:这是对队列研究和病例对照研究进行的系统回顾和荟萃分析,考虑了现有的最佳证据水平。我们检索了电子数据库(MEDLINE、EMBASE、Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials 和 Clinical Trials.gov),以确定在 COVID-19 大流行期间评估戴口罩与不戴口罩效果的研究。使用 Cochrane 的偏倚风险工具和建议评估、制定和评价分级法对偏倚风险和证据质量进行了评估。结果:在已确定的 1,028 项研究中,有 9 项符合纳入标准(2 项队列研究和 7 项病例对照研究)并被纳入分析。仅使用队列研究进行的荟萃分析表明,戴布口罩可将 COVID-19 感染风险降低 21% [RD = -0.21 (95% CI, -0.34 to -0.07);I2 = 0%;p = 0,002],差异具有统计学意义,但证据质量较低。在病例对照研究中,佩戴外科口罩可降低 COVID-19 感染的几率[OR = 0.51 (95% CI, 0.37-0.70); I2 = 47%; p = 0.0001],佩戴 N95 呼吸器口罩也可降低 COVID-19 感染的几率[OR = 0.31 (95% CI, 0.20-0.49); I2 = 0%; p = 0.00001],这两项研究的证据质量均较低。结论在这项系统综述和荟萃分析中,我们发现,无论口罩的类型(一次性外科口罩、普通口罩(包括布制口罩)或 N95 呼吸器)如何,戴口罩在预防 SARS-CoV-2 感染方面都是有效的,尽管所评估的研究证据质量不高且存在重要偏差。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Jornal Brasileiro De Pneumologia
Jornal Brasileiro De Pneumologia RESPIRATORY SYSTEM-
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
14.80%
发文量
118
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊介绍: The Brazilian Journal of Pulmonology publishes scientific articles that contribute to the improvement of knowledge in the field of the lung diseases and related areas.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信