Jefferson Tom, Del Mar Chris, Dooley Liz, Ferroni Eliana, Al-Ansary Lubna A, Bawazeer Ghada A, van Driel Mieke L, Nair Sreekumaran, Foxlee Ruth, Rivetti Alessandro
Vaccines Field, The Cochrane Collaboration, Via Adige 28a, Anguillara Sabazia, Roma, Italy, 00061.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Jan 20(1):CD006207. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub3.
Viral epidemics or pandemics of acute respiratory infections like influenza or severe acute respiratory syndrome pose a world-wide threat. Antiviral drugs and vaccinations may be insufficient to prevent catastrophe.
To systematically review the effectiveness of physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses.
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2009, issue 2); MEDLINE (1966 to May 2009); OLDMEDLINE (1950 to 1965); EMBASE (1990 to May 2009); and CINAHL (1982 to May 2009).
We scanned 2958 titles, excluded 2790 and retrieved the full papers of 168 trials, to include 59 papers of 60 studies. We included any physical interventions (isolation, quarantine, social distancing, barriers, personal protection and hygiene) to prevent transmission of respiratory viruses. We included the following study designs: randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cohorts, case controls, cross-over, before-after, and time series studies.
We used a standardised form to assess trial eligibility. RCTs were assessed by: randomisation method; allocation generation; concealment; blinding; and follow up. Non-RCTs were assessed for the presence of potential confounders, and classified into low, medium, and high risks of bias.
The risk of bias for the four RCTs, and most cluster RCTs, was high. The observational studies were of mixed quality. Only case-control data were sufficiently homogeneous to allow meta-analysis.The highest quality cluster RCTs suggest respiratory virus spread can be prevented by hygienic measures, such as handwashing, especially around younger children. Additional benefit from reduced transmission from children to other household members is broadly supported in results of other study designs, where the potential for confounding is greater. Six case-control studies suggested that implementing barriers to transmission, isolation, and hygienic measures are effective at containing respiratory virus epidemics. We found limited evidence that N95 respirators were superior to simple surgical masks, but were more expensive, uncomfortable, and caused skin irritation. The incremental effect of adding virucidals or antiseptics to normal handwashing to decrease respiratory disease remains uncertain. Global measures, such as screening at entry ports, were not properly evaluated. There was limited evidence that social distancing was effective especially if related to the risk of exposure.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Many simple and probably low-cost interventions would be useful for reducing the transmission of epidemic respiratory viruses. Routine long-term implementation of some of the measures assessed might be difficult without the threat of a looming epidemic.
流感或严重急性呼吸综合征等急性呼吸道感染的病毒流行或大流行对全球构成威胁。抗病毒药物和疫苗接种可能不足以预防灾难。
系统评价物理干预措施在阻断或减少呼吸道病毒传播方面的有效性。
我们检索了Cochrane对照试验中心注册库(CENTRAL)(《Cochrane图书馆》2009年第2期);MEDLINE(1966年至2009年5月);OLDMEDLINE(1950年至1965年);EMBASE(1990年至2009年5月);以及护理学与健康领域数据库(CINAHL)(1982年至2009年5月)。
我们浏览了2958篇标题,排除了2790篇,检索了168项试验的全文,纳入了60项研究中的59篇论文。我们纳入了任何旨在预防呼吸道病毒传播的物理干预措施(隔离、检疫、社交距离、屏障、个人防护和卫生)。我们纳入了以下研究设计:随机对照试验(RCT)、队列研究、病例对照研究、交叉试验、前后对照研究和时间序列研究。
我们使用标准化表格评估试验的合格性。RCT通过以下方面进行评估:随机化方法;分配方案产生;分配隐藏;盲法;以及随访。非RCT评估是否存在潜在混杂因素,并分为低、中、高偏倚风险。
四项RCT以及大多数整群RCT的偏倚风险较高。观察性研究质量参差不齐。只有病例对照数据足够同质,可以进行荟萃分析。质量最高的整群RCT表明,洗手等卫生措施可以预防呼吸道病毒传播,尤其是在年幼儿童周围。其他研究设计的结果广泛支持了减少儿童向其他家庭成员传播所带来的额外益处,尽管这些研究中存在更大的混杂可能性。六项病例对照研究表明,实施传播阻断屏障、隔离和卫生措施对控制呼吸道病毒流行有效。我们发现有限的证据表明N95口罩优于普通外科口罩,但价格更高、佩戴不舒服且会引起皮肤刺激。在常规洗手中添加杀毒剂或防腐剂以减少呼吸道疾病的增量效果仍不确定。全球措施,如在入境口岸进行筛查,未得到妥善评估。有有限的证据表明社交距离是有效的,特别是如果与接触风险相关。
许多简单且可能低成本的干预措施对于减少流行性呼吸道病毒的传播会很有用。如果没有迫在眉睫的疫情威胁,常规长期实施一些评估过的措施可能会很困难。