University Medicine Greifswald, Ferdinand-Sauerbruch-Strasse, 17475, Greifswald, Germany.
Adv Exp Med Biol. 2024;1458:175-199. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-61943-4_12.
The efficacy of face masking for the public is not convincing to prevent the transmission of respiratory tract viruses such as SARS-CoV-2 when the criteria of evidence-based medicine are applied. This finding is mainly explained by the results from randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) when a high prevalence of the infection and a high compliance in mask wearing was assured. Throughout these studies no significant protective effect was observed. Observational studies with surgical masks describe a significant protective effect, but are prone to confounders such as physical distance. Respirators do not provide an additional health benefit compared to surgical or medical masks (RCTs). Community masks can even increase the risk of infection (RCTs). Based on the categories of evidence-based medicine, the efficacy results can best be categorized as conflicting evidence. Many relevant adverse events are described when masks are worn for hours such as dyspnea (12.2-52.8%), headache (3.9-73.4%), pruritus (0.0-60.0%), and skin reactions (0.0-85.0%). Their frequency is often higher with respirators. In future pandemics, masks should only be recommended or mandated for settings in which a clinically relevant health benefit can be expected, defined as the prevention of severe, critical or fatal disease, that clearly outweighs the expectable associated adverse reactions.
当应用循证医学的标准时,口罩对于公众预防呼吸道病毒(如 SARS-CoV-2)传播的效果并不令人信服。这一发现主要是由于随机对照试验(RCT)的结果解释,当感染率高且口罩佩戴率高时,结果就是如此。在这些研究中,没有观察到显著的保护作用。使用外科口罩的观察性研究描述了显著的保护作用,但容易受到混杂因素的影响,如身体距离。与外科口罩或医用口罩相比,呼吸器并不能提供额外的健康益处(RCT)。社区口罩甚至会增加感染的风险(RCT)。基于循证医学的类别,疗效结果可以最好地归类为相互矛盾的证据。当口罩佩戴数小时时,会出现许多相关的不良反应事件,如呼吸困难(12.2-52.8%)、头痛(3.9-73.4%)、瘙痒(0.0-60.0%)和皮肤反应(0.0-85.0%)。这些情况在呼吸器佩戴时更为常见。在未来的大流行中,只有在预期有临床相关健康益处的情况下,才能推荐或强制佩戴口罩,定义为预防严重、危急或致命疾病,这种益处明显超过预期的相关不良反应。