Dataset Information

Facial dermatoses induced by face masks: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.

ABSTRACT: The use of masks for infection control was common in the COVID-19 pandemic. As numerous cross-sectional studies have suggested a link between the use of such masks and various facial dermatoses, a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies was conducted to evaluate this association, as well as potential risk factors for the development of such facial dermatoses. Observational studies were searched for in MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register. Thirty-seven observational studies with a total of 29 557 study participants were identified. This study was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 checklist and quality was assessed via the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale., Overall prevalence of facial dermatoses was 55%. Individually, acne, facial dermatitis, itch and pressure injuries were consistently reported as facial dermatoses, with a pooled prevalence of 31%, 24%, 30% and 31%, respectively. Duration of mask-wear was the most significant risk factor for the development of facial dermatoses (95% CI: 1.31-1.54, p < 0.001). Overall, facial dermatoses associated with mask wear are common, and consist of distinct entities. They are related to duration of use. Appropriate and tailored treatment is important to improve the outcomes for these affected patients.

SUBMITTER: Justin LYS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9539048 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Facial dermatoses induced by face masks: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.

Justin Lim Yi Shen LYS Yew Yik Weng YW

Contact dermatitis 20220902 6

The use of masks for infection control was common in the COVID-19 pandemic. As numerous cross-sectional studies have suggested a link between the use of such masks and various facial dermatoses, a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies was conducted to evaluate this association, as well as potential risk factors for the development of such facial dermatoses. Observational studies were searched for in MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register. Thirty-seven observational ...[more]

PMID: 35980367

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo identify, appraise and synthesise studies evaluating the downsides of wearing face masks in any setting. We also discuss potential strategies to mitigate these downsides.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesPubMed, 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 criteriaWe included randomised controlled trials and observational studies comparing face mask use to any active intervention or to control.Data extraction and analysisTwo 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.ResultsWe 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.ConclusionsThere 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 registrationOpen Science Framework website https://osf.io/sa6kf/ (timestamp 20-05-2020).

Project description:ObjectivesTo examine the use of face mask intervention in mitigating the risk of spreading respiratory infections and whether the effect of face mask intervention differs in different exposure settings and age groups.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis. We evaluated the risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool (ROB2).Data sourcesWe searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science were searched for randomized controlled trials investigating the effect of face masks on respiratory infections published between 1981 and February 9, 2022. We followed the PRISMA 2020 guidelines.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesWe included randomized controlled trials investigating the use of face mask intervention in mitigating the risk of spreading respiratory infections across different exposure settings.ResultsWe identified 2,400 articles for screening. 18 articles passed the inclusion criteria for both evidence synthesis and meta-analysis. There were N = 189,145 individuals in the face mask intervention arm and N = 173,536 in the control arm, and the follow-up times ranged from 4 days to 19 months. Our results showed between-study heterogeneity (p < 0.0001). While there was no statistically significant association over all studies when the covariate unadjusted intervention effect estimates were used (RR = 0.977 [0.858-1.113], p = 0.728), our subgroup analyses revealed that a face mask intervention reduced respiratory infections in the adult subgroup (RR = 0.8795 [0.7861-0.9839], p = 0.0249) and in a community setting (RR = 0.890 [0.812-0.975], p = 0.0125). Furthermore, our leave-one-out analysis found that one study biased the results towards a null effect. Consequently, when using covariate adjusted odds ratio estimates to have a more precise effect estimates of the intervention effect to account for differences at the baseline, the results showed that a face mask intervention did reduce respiratory infections when the biasing study was excluded from the analysis (OR = 0.8892 [0.8061-0.9810], p = 0.0192).ConclusionOur findings support the use of face masks particularly in a community setting and for adults. We also observed substantial between-study heterogeneity and varying adherence to protocol. Notably, many studies were subject to contamination bias thus affecting the efficacy of the intervention, that is when also some controls used masks or when the intervention group did not comply with mask use leading to a downward biased effect of treatment receipt and efficacy.Trial registrationPROSPERO registration number CRD42020205523.

Project description:BackgroundAntipsychotic agents are the basis for the pharmacological management of acute and chronic schizophrenia, bipolar disorders, mood disorders with psychotic feature, and other psychotic disorders. Antipsychotic medication use is frequently associated with unfavorable adverse effects such as extrapyramidal side effects (EPSEs). Hence, this systematic review and meta-analysis was aimed to determine the magnitude of antipsychotic-induced EPSEs.MethodA literature search was conducted using legitimate databases, indexing services, and directories including PubMed/MEDLINE (Ovid®), EMBASE (Ovid®), google scholar and WorldCat to retrieve studies. Following screening and eligibility, the relevant data were extracted from the included studies using an Excel sheet and exported to STATA 15.0 software for analyses. The Random effects pooling model was used to analyze outcome measures at a 95% confidence interval. Besides, publication bias analysis was conducted. The protocol has been registered on PROSPERO with ID: CRD42020175168.ResultIn total, 15 original articles were included for the systematic review and meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence of antipsychotic-induced EPSEs among patient taking antipsychotic medications was 37% (95% CI: 18-55%, before sensitivity) and 31% (95% CI: 19-44%, after sensitivity). The prevalence of antipsychotic-induced parkinsonism, akathisia, and tardive dyskinesia was 20% (95% CI: 11-28%), 11% (95% CI: 6-17%), and 7% (95% CI: 4-9%), respectively. To confirm a small-study effect, Egger's regression test accompanied by funnel plot asymmetry demonstrated that there was a sort of publication bias in studies reporting akathisia and tardive dyskinesia.ConclusionThe prevalence of antipsychotic-induced EPSEs was considerably high. One in five and more than one in ten patients experienced parkinsonism and akathisia, respectively. Appropriate prevention and early management of these effects can enhance the net benefits of antipsychotics.

Dataset Information

Facial dermatoses induced by face masks: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.

Publications

Facial dermatoses induced by face masks: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets