Chinese Evidence-Based Medicine Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, P.R. China.
West China School of Medicine, Sichuan University, Chengdu, P.R. China.
J Evid Based Med. 2020 May;13(2):93-101. doi: 10.1111/jebm.12381. Epub 2020 Mar 13.
Previous meta-analyses concluded that there was insufficient evidence to determine the effect of N95 respirators. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks for prevention of influenza by collecting randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
We searched PubMed, EMbase and The Cochrane Library from the inception to January 27, 2020 to identify relevant systematic reviews. The RCTs included in systematic reviews were identified. Then we searched the latest published RCTs from the above three databases and searched ClinicalTrials.gov for unpublished RCTs. Two reviewers independently extracted the data and assessed risk of bias. Meta-analyses were conducted to calculate pooled estimates by using RevMan 5.3 software.
A total of six RCTs involving 9 171 participants were included. There were no statistically significant differences in preventing laboratory-confirmed influenza (RR = 1.09, 95% CI 0.92-1.28, P > .05), laboratory-confirmed respiratory viral infections (RR = 0.89, 95% CI 0.70-1.11), laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection (RR = 0.74, 95% CI 0.42-1.29) and influenzalike illness (RR = 0.61, 95% CI 0.33-1.14) using N95 respirators and surgical masks. Meta-analysis indicated a protective effect of N95 respirators against laboratory-confirmed bacterial colonization (RR = 0.58, 95% CI 0.43-0.78).
The use of N95 respirators compared with surgical masks is not associated with a lower risk of laboratory-confirmed influenza. It suggests that N95 respirators should not be recommended for general public and nonhigh-risk medical staff those are not in close contact with influenza patients or suspected patients.
之前的荟萃分析得出结论,没有足够的证据来确定 N95 呼吸器的效果。我们旨在通过收集随机对照试验(RCT)来评估 N95 呼吸器与外科口罩预防流感的效果。
我们从建库到 2020 年 1 月 27 日在 PubMed、EMbase 和 The Cochrane Library 中搜索了相关的系统评价。从系统评价中确定了纳入的 RCT。然后,我们从上述三个数据库中搜索了最新发表的 RCT,并在 ClinicalTrials.gov 上搜索了未发表的 RCT。两位审查员独立提取数据并评估偏倚风险。使用 RevMan 5.3 软件进行荟萃分析,计算合并估计值。
共纳入 6 项 RCT,涉及 9171 名参与者。使用 N95 呼吸器和外科口罩预防实验室确诊流感(RR=1.09,95%CI 0.92-1.28,P>.05)、实验室确诊呼吸道病毒感染(RR=0.89,95%CI 0.70-1.11)、实验室确诊呼吸道感染(RR=0.74,95%CI 0.42-1.29)和流感样疾病(RR=0.61,95%CI 0.33-1.14)的效果无统计学差异。Meta 分析表明,N95 呼吸器对实验室确诊的细菌定植有保护作用(RR=0.58,95%CI 0.43-0.78)。
与外科口罩相比,使用 N95 呼吸器并不能降低实验室确诊流感的风险。这表明 N95 呼吸器不应该推荐给一般公众和非高危医护人员,这些人不与流感患者或疑似患者密切接触。