ABSTRACT
The current pandemic of COVID-19 has lead to conflicting opinions on whether wearing facemasks outside of health care facilities protects against the infection. To better understand the value of wearing facemasks we undertook a rapid systematic review of existing scientific evidence about development of respiratory illness, linked to use of facemasks in community settings.
Methods We included all study designs. There were 31 eligible studies (including 12 RCTs). Narrative synthesis and random-effects meta-analysis of attack rates for primary and secondary prevention in 28 studies were performed. Results were reported by design, setting and type of face barrier in primary prevention, and by who wore the facemask (index patient or well contacts) in secondary prevention trials. The preferred outcome was influenza-like illness (ILI) but similar outcomes were pooled with ILI when ILI was unavailable. GRADE quality assessment was based on RCTs with support from observational studies.
Results Where specific information was available, most studies reported about use of medical grade (surgical paper masks). In 3 RCTs, wearing a facemask may very slightly reduce the odds of developing ILI/respiratory symptoms, by around 6% (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.19, I 29%, low-certainty evidence). Greater effectiveness was suggested by observational studies. When both house-mates and an infected household member wore facemasks the odds of further household members becoming ill may be modestly reduced by around 19% (OR 0.81, 95%CI 0.48 to 1.37, I 45%, 5 RCTs, low certainty evidence). The protective effect was very small if only the well person (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.28, I 11%, 2 RCTs, low uncertainty evidence) or the infected person wore the facemask (very low certainty evidence).
Discussion Based on the RCTs we would conclude that wearing facemasks can be very slightly protective against primary infection from casual community contact, and modestly protective against household infections when both infected and uninfected members wear facemasks. However, the RCTs often suffered from poor compliance and controls using facemasks. Across observational studies the evidence in favour of wearing facemasks was stronger. We expect RCTs to under-estimate the protective effect and observational studies to exaggerate it. The evidence is not sufficiently strong to support widespread use of facemasks as a protective measure against COVID-19. However, there is enough evidence to support the use of facemasks for short periods of time by particularly vulnerable individuals when in transient higher risk situations. Further high quality trials are needed to assess when wearing a facemask in the community is most likely to be protective.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
No funder supported this study.
Author Declarations
All relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.
Yes
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
FUNDING This research was not supported by any funder.
Data Availability
REVMAN file that holds the data available upon request.
