RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Double-zero-event studies matter: a re-evaluation of physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection for preventing person-to-person transmission of COVID-19 and its policy impact
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.08.12.20173674
DO 10.1101/2020.08.12.20173674
A1 Mengli Xiao
A1 Lifeng Lin
A1 James S. Hodges
A1 Chang Xu
A1 Haitao Chu
YR 2020
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/08/14/2020.08.12.20173674.abstract
AB Objectives High-quality meta-analyses on COVID-19 are in urgent demand for evidence-based decision making. However, conventional approaches exclude double-zero-event studies (DZS) from meta-analyses. We assessed whether including such studies impacts the conclusions in a recent systematic urgent review on prevention measures for preventing person-to-person transmission of COVID-19.Study designs and settings We extracted data for meta-analyses containing DZS from a recent review that assessed the effects of physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection for preventing person-to-person transmission. A bivariate generalized linear mixed model was used to re-do the meta-analyses with DZS included. We compared the synthesized relative risks (RRs) of the three prevention measures, their 95% confidence intervals (CI), and significance tests (at the level of 0.05) including and excluding DZS.Results The re-analyzed COVID-19 data containing DZS involved a total of 1,784 participants who were not considered in the original review. Including DZS noticeably changed the synthesized RRs and 95% CIs of several interventions. For the meta-analysis of the effect of physical distancing, the RR of COVID-19 decreased from 0.15 (95% CI, 0.03 to 0.73) to 0.07 (95% CI, 0.01 to 0.98). For several meta-analyses, the statistical significance of the synthesized RR was changed. The RR of eye protection with a physical distance of 2 m and the RR of physical distancing when using N95 respirators were no longer statistically significant after including DZS.Conclusions DZS may contain useful information. Sensitivity analyses that include DZS in meta-analysis are recommended.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis research was supported in part by the U.S. National Institutes of Health/National Library of Medicine grant R01 LM012982. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Not applicableAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesThe data is published and available from the Lancet. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9/fulltext