Spira Beny
Microbiology, Instituto de Ciências Biomédicas, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, BRA.
Cureus. 2024 Dec 10;16(12):e75455. doi: 10.7759/cureus.75455. eCollection 2024 Dec.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, masks were widely promoted and mandated as a key measure to help reduce the transmission of SARS-CoV-2. These policies were primarily informed by laboratory evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of particle filtration, alongside observational studies. While several meta-analyses have indicated that masks may contribute to reducing viral transmission, many of these analyses rely heavily on observational data. There also appears to be a trend where the inclusion of more randomized controlled trials in a meta-analysis is associated with a lower estimate of mask effectiveness. It is important to recognize that success in laboratory settings does not always directly translate to the same outcomes in clinical trials or real-world conditions. This phenomenon is often seen in drug development, where therapies with promising mechanistic evidence may not always perform as expected in trials. In this regard, masks share similarities with other interventions that, while theoretically sound, require further testing in varied contexts to fully assess their real-world impact.
在新冠疫情期间,口罩被广泛推广并强制使用,作为帮助减少严重急性呼吸综合征冠状病毒2(SARS-CoV-2)传播的关键措施。这些政策主要基于实验室证据(证明了颗粒过滤的有效性)以及观察性研究。虽然几项荟萃分析表明口罩可能有助于减少病毒传播,但其中许多分析严重依赖观察性数据。此外,似乎存在一种趋势,即在荟萃分析中纳入更多随机对照试验与对口罩有效性的较低估计相关。必须认识到,在实验室环境中的成功并不总是直接转化为临床试验或现实世界条件下的相同结果。这种现象在药物开发中经常出现,即具有有前景的机制证据的疗法在试验中可能并不总是如预期那样表现。在这方面,口罩与其他干预措施有相似之处,这些干预措施虽然在理论上合理,但需要在不同背景下进行进一步测试,以充分评估其在现实世界中的影响。