Suppr超能文献

口罩预防呼吸道传染病的效果:一项随机对照试验的系统评价和网络分析。

Efficacy of face masks against respiratory infectious diseases: a systematic review and network analysis of randomized-controlled trials.

机构信息

Department of Immunogenetics, Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Institute of Tropical Medicine (NEKKEN), Nagasaki University, Nagasaki, Japan.

Faculty of Medicine, Port Said University, Port Said, Egypt.

出版信息

J Breath Res. 2021 Sep 13;15(4). doi: 10.1088/1752-7163/ac1ea5.

Abstract

During the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, face masks are among the most common and practical control measures used globally in reducing the risk of infection and disease transmission. Although several studies have investigated the efficacy of various face masks and respirators in preventing infection, the results have been inconsistent. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of the randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the actual efficacy of face masks in preventing respiratory infections. We searched nine electronic databases up to July 2020 to find potential articles. We accepted trials reporting the protective efficacy of face masks against respiratory infections, of which the primary endpoint was the presence of respiratory infections. We used the ROB-2 Cochrane tool to grade the trial quality. We initially registered the protocol for this study in PROSPERO (CRD42020178516). Sixteen RCTs involving 17 048 individuals were included for NMA. Overall, evidence was weak, lacking statistical power due to the small number of participants, and there was substantial inconsistency in our findings. In comparison to those without face masks, participants with fit-tested N95 respirators were likely to have lesser infection risk (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.38-1.19,-score 0.80), followed by those with non-fit-tested N95 and non-fit-tested FFP2 respirators that shared the similar risk, (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.12-4.36,-score 0.63) and (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.38-1.71,-score 0.63), respectively. Next, participants who donned face masks with and without hand hygiene practices showed modest risk improvement alike (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.67-1.17,-score 0.55) and (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.70-1.22,-score 0.51). Otherwise, participants donning double-layered cloth masks were prone to infection (RR 4.80, 95% CI 1.42-16.27,-score 0.01). Eleven out of 16 RCTs that underwent a pairwise meta-analysis revealed a substantially lower infection risk in those donning medical face masks (MFMs) than those without face masks (RR 0.83 95% CI 0.71-0.96). Given the body of evidence through a systematic review and meta-analyses, our findings supported the protective benefits of MFMs in reducing respiratory transmissions, and the universal mask-wearing should be applied-especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. More clinical data is required to conclude the efficiency of cloth masks; in the short term, users should not use cloth face masks in the outbreak hot spots and places where social distancing is impossible.

摘要

在当前的 COVID-19 大流行期间,口罩是全球范围内最常用和最实用的控制措施之一,可降低感染和疾病传播的风险。尽管有几项研究调查了各种口罩和呼吸器预防感染的功效,但结果并不一致。因此,我们进行了系统评价和网络荟萃分析(NMA),以评估口罩预防呼吸道感染的实际功效。我们检索了截至 2020 年 7 月的九个电子数据库以寻找潜在文章。我们接受了报告口罩对呼吸道感染的保护效果的试验,其主要终点是呼吸道感染的存在。我们使用 ROB-2 Cochrane 工具对试验质量进行分级。我们最初在 PROSPERO(CRD42020178516)中为这项研究注册了方案。纳入了 16 项涉及 17048 人的 RCT 进行 NMA。总体而言,证据较弱,由于参与者人数较少,缺乏统计学效力,并且我们的发现存在很大的不一致性。与不戴口罩的人相比,佩戴经过适配测试的 N95 呼吸器的参与者感染风险可能较低(RR 0.67,95%CI 0.38-1.19,-评分 0.80),其次是未经过适配测试的 N95 和未经过适配测试的 FFP2 呼吸器,其风险相似(RR 0.73,95%CI 0.12-4.36,-评分 0.63)和(RR 0.80,95%CI 0.38-1.71,-评分 0.63),分别。接下来,戴有和没有手部卫生措施的口罩的参与者风险改善相似(RR 0.89,95%CI 0.67-1.17,-评分 0.55)和(RR 0.92,95%CI 0.70-1.22,-评分 0.51)。否则,戴双层布口罩的参与者容易感染(RR 4.80,95%CI 1.42-16.27,-评分 0.01)。对 16 项进行了两两荟萃分析的 RCT 中的 11 项显示,戴医用口罩(MFMs)的患者感染风险明显低于不戴口罩的患者(RR 0.83 95%CI 0.71-0.96)。根据系统评价和荟萃分析的证据,我们的发现支持 MFMs 在减少呼吸道传播方面的保护作用,应普遍佩戴口罩,尤其是在 COVID-19 大流行期间。需要更多的临床数据来确定布口罩的效率;短期内,用户不应在疫情热点地区和无法保持社交距离的地方使用布面口罩。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验