IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0242901.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparative effectiveness of N95 respirators and surgical/face masks in preventing airborne infections in the era of SARS-CoV2 pandemic: A meta-analysis of randomized trials

Author

Listed:
  • Katarzyna Barycka
  • Lukasz Szarpak
  • Krzysztof Jerzy Filipiak
  • Milosz Jaguszewski
  • Jacek Smereka
  • Jerzy Robert Ladny
  • Oguz Turan

Abstract

Background: Recently, several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have evaluated the effect of N95 respirators compared with medical masks to protect against acute respiratory infections. However, these studies are limited by modest sample sizes and inconclusive results. Therefore, the goal of the present study was to review the relevant and available published RCTs with the aid of the increased power of meta-analytic methods in order to assess the effectiveness of medical masks and N95 respirators in reducing the risk of respiratory infections. Methods: This meta-analysis follows the recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement for conducting and reporting results. We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane databases from inception through April 1, 2020 to identify potentially relevant studies. Two authors (LS and JS) independently searched the titles and abstracts of the potentially eligible articles. They independently retrieved required data from the eligible trials; the data were initially tabulated for statistical analysis. Two authors (JRL and LS) independently assessed the methodological quality of the included RCTs using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias. Results: Six articles met the inclusion criteria. The pooled analysis showed that N95 respirators did not reduce the risk of infection with respiratory viruses compared with medical/surgical masks (5.7% vs. 7.9%; RR = 1.12; 95% CI: 0.88–1.41; p = 0.36); however, there was no statistically significant difference in laboratory-confirmed influenza between N95 and medical masks (RR = 0.91; 95% CI: 0.77–1.07; p = 0.26). Medical masks provided similar protection against other viruses, including coronavirus (RR = 0.74; 95% CI: 0.32–1.73; p = 0.49). Respiratory illness, as well as influenza-like illness were less frequently observed with N95 respirators. Conclusions: Our meta-analysis suggests that there are insufficient data to definitively determine whether N95 respirators are superior to medical masks in protection against transmissible acute respiratory infections. Further randomized trials are necessary to compare the above methods of respiratory protection in the context of COVID-19 incidence.

Suggested Citation

  • Katarzyna Barycka & Lukasz Szarpak & Krzysztof Jerzy Filipiak & Milosz Jaguszewski & Jacek Smereka & Jerzy Robert Ladny & Oguz Turan, 2020. "Comparative effectiveness of N95 respirators and surgical/face masks in preventing airborne infections in the era of SARS-CoV2 pandemic: A meta-analysis of randomized trials," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(12), pages 1-12, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0242901
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0242901
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0242901
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0242901&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0242901?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Naira Figueiredo Deana & Andrea Seiffert & Yanela Aravena-Rivas & Pablo Alonso-Coello & Patricia Muñoz-Millán & Gerardo Espinoza-Espinoza & Patricia Pineda & Carlos Zaror, 2021. "Recommendations for Safe Dental Care: A Systematic Review of Clinical Practice Guidelines in the First Year of the COVID-19 Pandemic," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(19), pages 1-19, September.
    2. Nezha Mejjad & El Khalil Cherif & Antonio Rodero & Dorota Anna Krawczyk & Jauad El Kharraz & Aniss Moumen & Mourad Laqbaqbi & Ahmed Fekri, 2021. "Disposal Behavior of Used Masks during the COVID-19 Pandemic in the Moroccan Community: Potential Environmental Impact," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(8), pages 1-19, April.
    3. Paul T. J. Scheepers & Heiman F. L. Wertheim & Maurice van Dael & Rob Anzion & Henk Jan Holterman & Steven Teerenstra & Martijn de Groot & Andreas Voss & Joost Hopman, 2022. "Reply to Viner, A.; Ayrey, S. Comment on “Scheepers et al. Comparative Performance Testing of Respirator versus Surgical Mask Using a Water Droplet Spray Model. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 202," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(10), pages 1-3, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0242901. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.