Abstract
Objective To examine the effect of face mask intervention in respiratory infections across different exposure settings and age groups.
Design Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Data sources PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Web of Science were searched for randomized controlled trials investigating the effect of face masks on respiratory infections published by November 18th 2020. Our reporting follows the PRISMA guidelines.
Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Randomized controlled trials investigating the effect of face masks in respiratory infections and influenza-like illness across different exposure settings and age groups. Two reviewers independently performed the search, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias. A random effects meta-analysis with risk ratio, risk difference, and number needed to treat were performed. Findings in exposure settings, age groups, and role of non-compliance were examined using a subgroup analysis.
Results Total of 17 studies were included, with N = 11, 601 individuals in intervention and N = 10, 286 in the control group with follow-up duration from 4 days to 19 months). 14 trials included adults (and children) and 3 included children only. 12 studies suffered from non-compliance in the treatment arm and 11 in the control arm. All studies were intent-to-treat analyses, and, thus, non-compliance can bias individual intent-to-treat estimates towards zero. Four out of seventeen studies supported use of face masks. A meta-analysis of all 17 studies found no association between face mask intervention and respiratory infections (RR = 0.9046 [0.777 - 1.053], p = 0.196, p fixed effect = 0.0006). However, a meta-analysis using odds ratios adjusted for age, sex, and vaccination (when available) suggests protective effect of the face mask intervention (17 studies, OR = 0.850 [0.736 - 0.982], p=0.027). A subgroup meta-analysis among adults with (unadjusted) risk ratios found a decrease in respiratory infections (14 studies, RR = 0.859 [0.750 - 0.983], p = 0.026, and 4 studies with a combined face masks and hand hygiene intervention RR = 0.782 [0.696 - 0.879], p < 0.0001). Finally, the face mask use is also supported by a meta-regression adjusting the effect estimates for non-compliance in the controls (17 studies RR = 0.87 [0.780 - 0.980], p = 0.017).
Conclusion Our findings support the use of face masks to prevent respiratory infections.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
Laine and Ollila gratefully acknowledge Academy of Finland for funding this research (Award number: 340551 LTL and 340539 HMO). Laine gratefully acknowledges funding from the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number P30AG043073. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health, nor of the Academy of Finland.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
All relevant ethical guidelines have been followed. The study is a meta-analysis of previous results and no additional IRB approval has been sought, or needed, for analysis.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
* This version: December 2, 2020. Laine and Ollila gratefully acknowledge Academy of Finland for funding this research (Award number: 340551 LTL and 340539 HMO). Laine gratefully acknowledges funding from the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number P30AG043073. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health, nor of the Academy of Finland. Corresponding authors: Hanna M. Ollila, FIMM-EMBL Group leader, Institute for Molecular Medicine Finland, University of Helsinki, Finland; hanna.m.ollila{at}helsinki.fi and Liisa T. Laine, Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, The Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA; lainel{at}wharton.upenn.edu
To examine the effect of face mask intervention in respiratory infections across different exposure settings and age groups.
1 Taking the overall risk into account is important because it helps in avoiding the bias caused by prioritizing one category over others as any source of bias can be problematic.[32]
Data Availability
The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article, and the references 12-28.
