8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Masking by health care and public safety workers in non‐patient care areas to mitigate SARS‐CoV‐2 infection: A systematic review

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objectives

          Wearing a mask is an important method for reducing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) transmission in health care and public safety settings. We assess the evidence regarding masking in the workplace during the initial months of the COVID‐19 pandemic (PROSPERO CRD4202432097).

          Methods

          We performed a systematic review of published literature from 4 databases and evaluated the quality of evidence with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. We searched for observational and experimental research involving public safety and health care workers. We included articles evaluating the use of masks, versus no mask, on the outcome of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection.

          Results

          Our search yielded 15,013 records, of which 9 studies were included. Most studies (n = 8; 88.9%) involved infections or outbreaks among health care workers. The majority (88.9%) used in‐depth interviews of cases and non‐cases to obtain self‐reported use of masks during periods of exposure. One of 9 studies quantitatively assessed differences in SARS‐CoV‐2 infection based on use of masks in non‐patient care settings. Use of observational study designs, small sample sizes, inadequate control for confounding, and inadequate measurement of exposure and non‐exposure periods with infected coworkers contributed to the quality of evidence being judged as very low.

          Conclusions

          The available evidence from the initial months of the pandemic suggests that the use of masks in congregate, non‐patient care settings, such as breakrooms, helps to reduce risk of SARS‐CoV‐2 virus transmission. However, this evidence is limited and is of very low quality. Prospective studies incorporating active observation measures are warranted.

          Related collections

          Most cited references39

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

          Flaws in the design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of randomised trials can cause the effect of an intervention to be underestimated or overestimated. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias aims to make the process clearer and more accurate
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables.

            This article is the first of a series providing guidance for use of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system of rating quality of evidence and grading strength of recommendations in systematic reviews, health technology assessments (HTAs), and clinical practice guidelines addressing alternative management options. The GRADE process begins with asking an explicit question, including specification of all important outcomes. After the evidence is collected and summarized, GRADE provides explicit criteria for rating the quality of evidence that include study design, risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness, and magnitude of effect. Recommendations are characterized as strong or weak (alternative terms conditional or discretionary) according to the quality of the supporting evidence and the balance between desirable and undesirable consequences of the alternative management options. GRADE suggests summarizing evidence in succinct, transparent, and informative summary of findings tables that show the quality of evidence and the magnitude of relative and absolute effects for each important outcome and/or as evidence profiles that provide, in addition, detailed information about the reason for the quality of evidence rating. Subsequent articles in this series will address GRADE's approach to formulating questions, assessing quality of evidence, and developing recommendations. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found

              Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

              Summary Background Severe 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. Methods We 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. Findings Our 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; p interaction=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; p interaction=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. Interpretation The 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. Funding World Health Organization.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                pdp3@pitt.edu
                Journal
                J Am Coll Emerg Physicians Open
                J Am Coll Emerg Physicians Open
                10.1002/(ISSN)2688-1152
                EMP2
                Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians Open
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                2688-1152
                26 March 2022
                April 2022
                : 3
                : 2 ( doiID: 10.1002/emp2.v3.2 )
                : e12699
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] School of Medicine Department of Emergency Medicine University of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh Pennsylvania USA
                [ 2 ] School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Emergency Medicine Program University of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh Pennsylvania USA
                [ 3 ] Health Sciences Library System University of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh Pennsylvania USA
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence

                P. Daniel Patterson, PhD, NRP, University of Pittsburgh, School of Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine, 3600 Forbes Ave., Iroquois Building, Suite 400A, Pittsburgh, PA 15261, USA.

                Email: pdp3@ 123456pitt.edu

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8189-0919
                Article
                EMP212699
                10.1002/emp2.12699
                8957376
                3dbe75dc-570c-42a3-b7fb-ced93bb512bc
                © 2022 The Authors. JACEP Open published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American College of Emergency Physicians

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

                History
                : 09 February 2022
                : 07 December 2021
                : 17 February 2022
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 1, Pages: 9, Words: 5907
                Categories
                Systematic Review/Meta‐analysis
                Infectious Disease
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                April 2022
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:6.1.2 mode:remove_FC converted:26.03.2022

                covid,health care,masks,public safety,sars‐cov‐2
                covid, health care, masks, public safety, sars‐cov‐2

                Comments

                Comment on this article