-
Created July 8, 2022, last updated over 2 years ago.
Collection: 154, Score: 489, Trend score: 0, Read count: 796, Articles count: 4, Created: 2022-07-08 12:20:15 UTC. Updated: 2022-07-08 12:22:10 UTC.Notes
Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
- Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as
*italics*,_underline_or**bold**. - Superscript can be denoted by
<sup>text</sup>and subscript<sub>text</sub>. - Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines
1. 2. 3., hyphens-or asterisks*. - Links can be included with:
[my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com) - Images can be included with:
 - For footnotes use
[^1](This is a footnote.)inline. - Or use an inline reference
[^1]to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document[^1]: This is a long footnote..
Collected Articles
-
This important WHO-funded review and meta-analysis from Canada's COVID-19 SURGE group (Systematic Urgent Review Group Effort) looked at the effect of three non-pharmacological interventions on coronavirus transmission:
- Physical distancing
- Face masks
- Eye protection
Why is this important?
The speed of both the global spread of SARS-CoV-2 and national responses has lead to a bundled-approach to public health interventions for which the evidence-base is still catching up. This review provides reassurance that the core recommendations are likely beneficial.
What did they do?
Reflecting the lack of data, the review group analysed research covering not just SARS-CoV-2, but also SARS and MERS, capturing 172 observational studies with over 25,000 patients in both community and healthcare settings.
What did they find?
Perhaps unsurprisingly (though reassuring!) physical distancing > 1 meter was associated with lower transmission risk (risk difference 95% CI -11.5 to -7.5%) with increasing protection as distance increased beyond 2 meters.
Face-masks were also associated with reduced transmission (risk difference 95% CI -14.3% to -15.9%, though with low certainty), as was eye protection (risk difference 95% CI -12.5% to -7.7%).
N95 masks were even more strongly associated with risk reduction, as was mask use in a health-care setting vs non-health-care. Both N95 and multi-layer surgical masks were more protective than single-layer masks.
Bottom-line?
Simple protective behavioural changes, namely physical distancing, face-mask use and eye protection, are associated with a significant risk reduction in coronavirus transmission.
“...recognize, as an aspect of health worker safety, the precautionary principle that reasonable action to reduce risk, such as the use of a fitted N95 respirator, need not await scientific certainty”.
Campbell (2006) SARS Commission final report
Keep in mind...
Most of the 172 studies reported on bundled interventions (ie. PPE and distancing) so multi-factor analysis was required to tease out the individual contributions to risk reduction. Randomised trials are still pending...
summary -
SARS-CoV-2 viral particles can travel large distances, detected at up to 4 meters, and remaining in air up to 3 hours after aerosolisation, although with uncertain infective viability.
pearl -
Meta Analysis Comparative Study
Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
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). ⋯ 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.
-
Influenza Other Respi Viruses · Jul 2020
Meta Analysis Comparative StudyMedical masks vs N95 respirators for preventing COVID-19 in healthcare workers: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.
Respiratory protective devices are critical in protecting against infection in healthcare workers at high risk of novel 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19); however, recommendations are conflicting and epidemiological data on their relative effectiveness against COVID-19 are limited. ⋯ Low certainty evidence suggests that medical masks and N95 respirators offer similar protection against viral respiratory infection including coronavirus in healthcare workers during non-aerosol-generating care. Preservation of N95 respirators for high-risk, aerosol-generating procedures in this pandemic should be considered when in short supply.
- Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as