Dataset Information

Downsides of face masks and possible mitigation strategies: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To identify, appraise and synthesise studies evaluating the downsides of wearing face masks in any setting. We also discuss potential strategies to mitigate these downsides.

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Data sources

PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL and EuropePMC were searched (inception-18 May 2020), and clinical registries were searched via CENTRAL. We also did a forward-backward citation search of the included studies.

Inclusion criteria

We included randomised controlled trials and observational studies comparing face mask use to any active intervention or to control.

Data extraction and analysis

Two author pairs independently screened articles for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the quality of included studies. The primary outcomes were compliance, discomforts, harms and adverse events of wearing face masks.

Results

We screened 5471 articles, including 37 (40 references); 11 were meta-analysed. For mask wear adherence, 47% (95% CI 25% to 68%, p<0.0001), more people wore face masks in the face mask group compared with control; adherence was significantly higher (26%, 95% CI 8% to 46%, p<0.01) in the surgical/medical mask group than in N95/P2 group. The largest number of studies reported on the discomfort and irritation outcome (20 studies); fewest reported on the misuse of masks, and none reported on mask contamination or risk compensation behaviour. Risk of bias was generally high for blinding of participants and personnel and low for attrition and reporting biases.

Conclusions

There are insufficient data to quantify all of the adverse effects that might reduce the acceptability, adherence and effectiveness of face masks. New research on face masks should assess and report the harms and downsides. Urgent research is also needed on methods and designs to mitigate the downsides of face mask wearing, particularly the assessment of possible alternatives.

Systematic review registration

Open Science Framework website https://osf.io/sa6kf/ (timestamp 20-05-2020).

SUBMITTER: Bakhit M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7903088 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Downsides of face masks and possible mitigation strategies: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Bakhit Mina M Krzyzaniak Natalia N Scott Anna Mae AM Clark Justin J Glasziou Paul P Del Mar Chris C

BMJ open 20210222 2

<h4>Objective</h4>To identify, appraise and synthesise studies evaluating the downsides of wearing face masks in any setting. We also discuss potential strategies to mitigate these downsides.<h4>Design</h4>Systematic review and meta-analysis.<h4>Data sources</h4>PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL and EuropePMC were searched (inception-18 May 2020), and clinical registries were searched via CENTRAL. We also did a forward-backward citation search of the included studies.<h4>Inclusion criteria</h4>We included ...[more]

PMID: 33619199

Similar Datasets

Project description:Recently, research has investigated the role of the ruminant native microbiome, and the role microbes play in methane (CH4) production and mitigation. However, the variation across microbiome studies makes implementing impactful strategies difficult. The first objective of this study is to identify, summarize, compile, and discuss the current literature on CH4 mitigation strategies and how they interact with the native ruminant microbiome. The second objective is to perform a meta-analysis on the identified16S rRNA sequencing data. A literature search using Web of Science, Scopus, AGRIS, and Google Scholar will be implemented. Eligible criteria will be defined using PICO (population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes) elements. Two independent reviewers will be utilized for both the literature search and data compilation. Risk of bias will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk Bias 2.0 tool. Publicly available 16S rRNA amplicon gene sequencing data will be downloaded from NCBI Sequence Read Archive, European Nucleotide Archive or similar database using appropriate extraction methods. Data processing will be performed using QIIME2 following a standardized protocol. Meta-analyses will be performed on both alpha and beta diversity as well as taxonomic analyses. Alpha diversity metrics will be tested using a Kruskal-Wallis test with a Benjamini-Hochberg multiple testing correction. Beta diversity will be statistically tested using PERMANOVA testing with multiple test corrections. Hedge's g standardized mean difference statistic will be used to calculate fixed and random effects model estimates using a 95% confidence interval. Heterogeneity between studies will be assessed using the I2 statistic. Potential publication bias will be further assessed using Begg's correlation test and Egger's regression test. The GRADE approach will be used to assess the certainty of evidence. The following protocol will be used to guide future research and meta-analyses for investigating CH4 mitigation strategies and ruminant microbial ecology. The future work could be used to enhance livestock management techniques for GHG control. This protocol is registered in Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/vt56c) and available in the Systematic Reviews for Animals and Food (https://www.syreaf.org/contact).

Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has transformed healthcare significantly and telepsychiatry is now the primary means of treatment in some countries.AimsTo compare the efficacy of telepsychiatry and face-to-face treatment.MethodA comprehensive meta-analysis comparing telepsychiatry with face-to-face treatment for psychiatric disorders. The primary outcome was the mean change in the standard symptom scale scores used for each psychiatric disorder. Secondary outcomes included all meta-analysable outcomes, such as all-cause discontinuation and safety/tolerability.ResultsWe identified 32 studies (n = 3592 participants) across 11 mental illnesses. Disease-specific analyses showed that telepsychiatry was superior to face-to-face treatment regarding symptom improvement for depressive disorders (k = 6 studies, n = 561; standardised mean difference s.m.d. = -0.325, 95% CI -0.640 to -0.011, P = 0.043), whereas face-to-face treatment was superior to telepsychiatry for eating disorder (k = 1, n = 128; s.m.d. = 0.368, 95% CI 0.018-0.717, P = 0.039). No significant difference was seen between telepsychiatry and face-to-face treatment when all the studies/diagnoses were combined (k = 26, n = 2290; P = 0.248). Telepsychiatry had significantly fewer all-cause discontinuations than face-to-face treatment for mild cognitive impairment (k = 1, n = 61; risk ratio RR = 0.552, 95% CI 0.312-0.975, P = 0.040), whereas the opposite was seen for substance misuse (k = 1, n = 85; RR = 37.41, 95% CI 2.356-594.1, P = 0.010). No significant difference regarding all-cause discontinuation was seen between telepsychiatry and face-to-face treatment when all the studies/diagnoses were combined (k = 27, n = 3341; P = 0.564).ConclusionsTelepsychiatry achieved a symptom improvement effect for various psychiatric disorders similar to that of face-to-face treatment. However, some superiorities/inferiorities were seen across a few specific psychiatric disorders, suggesting that its efficacy may vary according to disease type.

Project description:BackgroundSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes COVID-19 and is spread person-to-person through close contact. We aimed to investigate the effects of physical distance, face masks, and eye protection on virus transmission in health-care and non-health-care (eg, community) settings.MethodsWe did a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the optimum distance for avoiding person-to-person virus transmission and to assess the use of face masks and eye protection to prevent transmission of viruses. We obtained data for SARS-CoV-2 and the betacoronaviruses that cause severe acute respiratory syndrome, and Middle East respiratory syndrome from 21 standard WHO-specific and COVID-19-specific sources. We searched these data sources from database inception to May 3, 2020, with no restriction by language, for comparative studies and for contextual factors of acceptability, feasibility, resource use, and equity. We screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in duplicate. We did frequentist and Bayesian meta-analyses and random-effects meta-regressions. We rated the certainty of evidence according to Cochrane methods and the GRADE approach. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020177047.FindingsOur search identified 172 observational studies across 16 countries and six continents, with no randomised controlled trials and 44 relevant comparative studies in health-care and non-health-care settings (n=25 697 patients). Transmission of viruses was lower with physical distancing of 1 m or more, compared with a distance of less than 1 m (n=10 736, pooled adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0·18, 95% CI 0·09 to 0·38; risk difference [RD] -10·2%, 95% CI -11·5 to -7·5; moderate certainty); protection was increased as distance was lengthened (change in relative risk [RR] 2·02 per m; pinteraction=0·041; moderate certainty). Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection (n=2647; aOR 0·15, 95% CI 0·07 to 0·34, RD -14·3%, -15·9 to -10·7; low certainty), with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks or similar (eg, reusable 12-16-layer cotton masks; pinteraction=0·090; posterior probability >95%, low certainty). Eye protection also was associated with less infection (n=3713; aOR 0·22, 95% CI 0·12 to 0·39, RD -10·6%, 95% CI -12·5 to -7·7; low certainty). Unadjusted studies and subgroup and sensitivity analyses showed similar findings.InterpretationThe findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis support physical distancing of 1 m or more and provide quantitative estimates for models and contact tracing to inform policy. Optimum use of face masks, respirators, and eye protection in public and health-care settings should be informed by these findings and contextual factors. Robust randomised trials are needed to better inform the evidence for these interventions, but this systematic appraisal of currently best available evidence might inform interim guidance.FundingWorld Health Organization.

Project description:BackgroundThe cause of end-organ damage and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients is postulated to be connected to the uncontrolled increase of pro-inflammatory cytokines. The upregulation of many cytokines is dependent on signaling through the Janus kinase 1 (JAK-1) and JAK-2 pathways. Ruxolitinib, a JAK-1 and JAK-2 inhibitor, is documented to have potent anti-inflammatory activity by targeting several cytokines and growth factors with proposed efficacy in the cytokine storm observed in severe COVID-19 patients; therefore, this study examines the efficacy and tolerability of ruxolitinib for adult COVID-19 patients.Materials and methodsThis review was conducted using preferred reporting items for aystematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) methodology. Six reviewers analyzed 1,120 results. Seven studies were selected and validated. A quantitative meta-analysis was further performed to evaluate clinical improvement at day 28, mortality at day 28, and oxygen requirements comparing treatment and standard of care groups.Results168 individuals were involved in the studies selected: 122 in cohort studies, 4 in case reports, and 41 in randomized controlled studies. The ruxolitinib group had a higher likelihood of clinical improvement by the 28th day of treatment when assessed with the standard of care (SOC) group (odds ratio [OR]: 1.48; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.53 - 4.16; P = 0.45; I² = 0%). The SOC group was at a higher risk of experiencing serious adverse events (OR: 0.17; 95% CI: 0.03 - 1.13; P = 0.07). Notably the SOC group had a higher likelihood of death (OR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.11-2.29; P = 0.07; I² = 0%).ConclusionPrior studies on ruxolitinib have demonstrated it is able to decrease inflammatory markers. In recent studies on COVID-19, treatment with ruxolitinib decreased the time on mechanical ventilation, hospitalization time, and the need for vasopressor support. Additionally, ruxolitinib showed decreased mortality and demonstrated improvement in lung congestion as evidenced by computerized tomography imaging. These findings warrant further clinical investigation into Ruxolitinib as a potential treatment approach for severe COVID-19.

Dataset Information

Downsides of face masks and possible mitigation strategies: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Objective

Design

Data sources

Inclusion criteria

Data extraction and analysis

Results

Conclusions

Systematic review registration

Publications

Downsides of face masks and possible mitigation strategies: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets