About: Medical masks vs N95 respirators for preventing COVID‐19 in healthcare workers: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized trials

Facets (new session)
Description
Metadata
Settings
- owl:sameAs
- Inference Rule:

About: Medical masks vs N95 respirators for preventing COVID‐19 in healthcare workers: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized trials Goto Sponge NotDistinct Permalink

An Entity of Type : schema:ScholarlyArticle, within Data Space : wasabi.inria.fr associated with source document(s)

Attributes	Values
type	Academic Article research paper schema:ScholarlyArticle
isDefinedBy	Covid-on-the-Web dataset
has title	Medical masks vs N95 respirators for preventing COVID‐19 in healthcare workers: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized trials
Creator	Bartoszko, Jessica Alhazzani, \| Farooqi, Abdul Loeb, \| Mohammed, \|
Source	Medline; PMC; WHO
abstract	BACKGROUND: Respiratory protective devices are critical in protecting against infection in healthcare workers at high risk of novel 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID‐19); however, recommendations are conflicting and epidemiological data on their relative effectiveness against COVID‐19 are limited. PURPOSE: To compare medical masks to N95 respirators in preventing laboratory‐confirmed viral infection and respiratory illness including coronavirus specifically in healthcare workers. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL from January 1, 2014, to March 9, 2020. Update of published search conducted from January 1, 1990, to December 9, 2014. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the protective effect of medical masks to N95 respirators in healthcare workers. DATA EXTRACTION: Reviewer pair independently screened, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence. DATA SYNTHESIS: Four RCTs were meta‐analyzed adjusting for clustering. Compared with N95 respirators; the use of medical masks did not increase laboratory‐confirmed viral (including coronaviruses) respiratory infection (OR 1.06; 95% CI 0.90‐1.25; I (2) = 0%; low certainty in the evidence) or clinical respiratory illness (OR 1.49; 95% CI: 0.98‐2.28; I (2) = 78%; very low certainty in the evidence). Only one trial evaluated coronaviruses separately and found no difference between the two groups (P = .49). LIMITATIONS: Indirectness and imprecision of available evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Low certainty evidence suggests that medical masks and N95 respirators offer similar protection against viral respiratory infection including coronavirus in healthcare workers during non–aerosol‐generating care. Preservation of N95 respirators for high‐risk, aerosol‐generating procedures in this pandemic should be considered when in short supply.
has issue date	2020-04-21(xsd:dateTime)
bibo:doi	10.1111/irv.12745
bibo:pmid	32246890
has license	cc-by
sha1sum (hex)	c05bd377d2b0b2108a1d4ccdb6dba0519ac2677f
schema:url	https://doi.org/10.1111/irv.12745
resource representing a document's title	Medical masks vs N95 respirators for preventing COVID‐19 in healthcare workers: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized trials
has PubMed Central identifier	PMC7298295
has PubMed identifier	32246890
schema:publication	Influenza Other Respir Viruses
resource representing a document's body	covid:c05bd377d2b0b2108a1d4ccdb6dba0519ac2677f#body_text
is schema:about of	named entity 'relative' named entity 'infection' named entity 'COVID-19' named entity 'RCTs' named entity 'RISK OF BIAS' named entity 'RESPIRATORS' named entity 'EFFECTIVENESS' named entity 'LIMITED' named entity 'THEIR' named entity 'RELATIVE' named entity 'RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS' named entity 'MEDICAL' named entity 'NOVEL' named entity 'CORONAVIRUS DISEASE' covid:arg/c05bd377d2b0b2108a1d4ccdb6dba0519ac2677f named entity 'surgical masks' named entity 'bronchoscopy' named entity 'healthcare workers' named entity 'influenza-like illness' named entity 'publication bias' named entity 'randomized trials' named entity 'randomized trial' named entity 'risk' named entity 'workers' named entity 'Extraction' named entity 'N95' named entity 'detection bias' named entity 'confidence intervals' named entity 'coronavirus infections' named entity 'reverse-transcriptase PCR' named entity 'N95' named entity 'Centers for Disease Control and Prevention' named entity 'medical masks' named entity 'N95' named entity 'OC43' named entity 'RCTs' named entity 'attrition bias' named entity 'medical masks' named entity 'short supply' named entity 'design effect' named entity 'influenza-like' named entity 'N95' named entity 'COVID-19' named entity 'meta-analysis' named entity 'Study' named entity 'N95' named entity 'devices' named entity 'COVID-19' named entity 'Reviewer' named entity 'disease' named entity 'Randomized controlled trials' named entity 'coronavirus' named entity 'N95' named entity 'Medical masks' named entity 'screened' named entity 'RCT' named entity 'influenza-like illness' named entity 'respirator' named entity 'randomized controlled trial' named entity 'confidence intervals' named entity 'respiratory symptoms' named entity 'meta-analysis' named entity 'Cochrane' named entity 'N95' named entity 'medical masks' named entity 'fever' named entity 'inhalation' named entity 'allocation concealment' named entity 'N95' named entity 'COVID' named entity 'SARS-CoV-2' named entity '3.6.3' named entity 'meta-analyzed' named entity 'randomized trial' named entity 'respiratory illness' named entity 'infection' named entity 'medical device'

Faceted Search & Find service v1.13.91 as of Mar 24 2020

Alternative Linked Data Documents: Sponger | ODE Content Formats:

RDF

ODATA

Microdata

About

OpenLink Virtuoso version 07.20.3229 as of Jul 10 2020, on Linux (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu), Single-Server Edition (94 GB total memory)
Data on this page belongs to its respective rights holders.
Virtuoso Faceted Browser Copyright © 2009-2024 OpenLink Software