Wearing masks to reduce the spread of respiratory viruses: a systematic evidence mapping

Yanfei Li; Zhipeng Wei; Jingyun Zhang; Rui Li; Huijuan Li; Liujiao Cao; Liangying Hou; Weiyi Zhang; Nan Chen; Kangle Guo; Xiuxia Li; Kehu Yang

doi:10.21037/atm-20-6745

Wearing masks to reduce the spread of respiratory viruses: a systematic evidence mapping

Ann Transl Med. 2021 May;9(9):811. doi: 10.21037/atm-20-6745.

Authors

Yanfei Li^{1

2

3

4}, Zhipeng Wei^{1

2

3

4

5}, Jingyun Zhang⁵, Rui Li^{1

2

3

4}, Huijuan Li^{1

2

3

4}, Liujiao Cao^{1

2

3

4}, Liangying Hou^{1

2

3

4}, Weiyi Zhang^{1

2

3

4}, Nan Chen^{1

2

3

4}, Kangle Guo^{1

2

3

4}, Xiuxia Li^{1

2

3

4}, Kehu Yang^{1

2

3

4

5}

Affiliations

¹ Evidence Based Social Science Research Center/Health Technology Assessment Center, School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
² Key Laboratory of Evidence Based Medicine and Knowledge Translation of Gansu Province, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
³ WHO Collaborating Centre for Guideline Implementation and Knowledge Translation, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
⁴ Chinese GRADE Center, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
⁵ Evidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.

Abstract

Since the outbreak of coronavirus disease in 2019, the controversy over the effectiveness, safety, and enforceability of masks used by the public has been prominent. This study aims to identify, describe, and organize the currently available high-quality design evidence concerning mask use during the spread of respiratory viruses and find evidence gaps. Databases including PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, EMBASE, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), clinical trial registry, gray literature database, and reference lists of articles were searched for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews (SRs) in April 2020. The quality of the studies was assessed using the risk of bias tool recommended by the Cochrane Handbook Version 5.1.0 and the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2) tool. A bubble plot was designed to display information in four dimensions. Finally, twenty-one RCTs and nine SRs met our inclusion criteria. Most studies were of "Low quality" and focused on healthcare workers. Six RCTs reported adverse effects, with one implying that the cloth masks reuse may increase the infection risk. When comparing masks with usual practice, over 70% RCTs and also SRs showed that masks were "beneficial" or "probably beneficial"; however, when comparing N95 respirators with medical masks, 75% of SRs showed "no effect", whereas 50% of RCTs showed "beneficial effect". Overall, the current evidence provided by high-quality designs may be insufficient to deal with a second impact of the pandemic. Masks may be effective in interrupting or reducing the spread of respiratory viruses; however, the effect of an N95 respirator or cloth masks versus medical masks is unclear. Additional high-quality studies determining the impact of prolonged mask use on vulnerable populations (such as children and pregnant women), the possible adverse effects (such as skin allergies and shortness of breath) and optimal settings and exposure circumstances for populations to use masks are needed.

Keywords: COVID-19; cloth mask; evidence mapping; gap maps; mask.

Publication types

Review