Triaging of Respiratory Protective Equipment on the assumed risk of SARS-CoV-2 aerosol exposure in patient-facing healthcare workers delivering secondary care: a rapid review ============================================================================================================================================================================== * Prashanth Ramaraj * Jonathan Super * Ruben Doyle * Christopher Aylwin * Shehan Hettiaratchy ## Abstract **Objectives** *“In patient-facing healthcare workers delivering secondary care, what is the evidence behind UK Government PPE Guidance on surgical masks versus respirators for SARS-CoV-2 protection?”* **METHODS** Two independent reviewers searched MEDLINE, Google Scholar and grey literature 11th – 30th April 2020. Studies published on any date containing primary data comparing surgical facemasks and respirators specific to SARS-CoV-2, and studies underpinning government PPE guidance, were included. Appraisal was performed using CASP checklists. Results were synthesised by comparison of findings and appraisals. **RESULTS** In all three laboratory studies of 14 different respirators and 12 surgical facemasks, respirators were significantly more effective than facemasks in protection factors, reduction factors, filter penetrations, and total inspiratory leakages at differing particle sizes, mean inspiratory flows, and breathing rates. Tests included live viruses and inert particles on dummies and humans. In six clinical studies, 6,502 participants, there was no consistent definition of “exposure” to determine the efficacy of RPE. It is difficult to define “safe”. The only statistically significant result found continuous use of respirators more effective in clinical respiratory illness compared to targeted use or surgical facemask. **CONCLUSIONS** There is a paucity of evidence on the comparison of FRSMs and respirators specific to SARS-CoV-2, and poor-quality evidence in other contexts. Indirectness results in extrapolation of non-SARS-CoV-2 specific data to guide UK Government PPE guidance. The appropriateness of this is unknown given the uncertainty over the transmission of SARS-CoV-2. 1. The evidence base for UK Government PPE guidelines is not based on SARS-CoV-2 and requires generalisation from low-quality evidence of other pathogens/particles. 2. There is a paucity of high-quality evidence regarding the efficacy of RPE specific to SARS-CoV-2. 3. HMG’s PPE guidelines are underpinned by the assumption of droplet transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Triaging the use of FFP3 respirators might increase the risk of COVID-19 faced by some. **FUNDING** This review was unfunded and unsponsored. **Strengths** * This article does not aim to prove an intervention as more effective than a comparator. It identifies a paucity of evidence on respiratory protective equipment specific to SARS-CoV-2. * The results of this study will allow for future study with a real and tangible effect towards the wellbeing of healthcare workers nationwide, and perhaps internationally. * This article has an exceptionally broad range- from infection control, to public health, to biomechanical engineering, to industry. Its extensive reach would allow for citations from several disciplines. **Limitations** * This study reviews evidence specific to a novel virus. Naturally, there is a paucity of specific evidence. Keywords * “PPE” * “FFP3” * “surgical mask” * “SARS-CoV-2” * “COVID-19” ## INTRODUCTION 807 healthcare workers have died of COVID-19 worldwide as of 30th April 2020.1 106 of these tragedies have occurred in the UK.2 On 11th April 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 SitRep3 was focused solely on the need for robust reporting of SARS-CoV-2 (the virus causing COVID-19 disease) in healthcare workers (HCWs) in order to better guide infection prevention and control measures. To have confidence in the indications for use of Respiratory Protective Equipment (RPE),the fluid repellent surgical mask (FRSM) and the Filtering Face Piece Class 3 (FFP3) respirator, UK HCWs must have confidence in the evidence-base behind UK Government (HMG) PPE guidancei.4,5 It is widely accepted that filtering face piece respirators (that meet UK/EU standards of FFP2/3 and US standards of N95/100ii) are more effective in the protection of the wearer from aerosolised pathogens than FRSMs, which are not designed to protect the wearer.6 This is reflected in global RPE guidelines 7–11 which demonstrate the triaging of respirators to those more likely to encounter aerosolised SARS-CoV-2, and the recommendation of FRSMs to those deemed less likely. The need for triaging of RPE includes several considerations other than the protective ability of these respirators. These include the shortage of global stock and supply,7–11 the need to ensure that low-to-middle income countries (LMICs) are also able to access RPE,12 and the relative risk of SARS-CoV-2 exposure by the current understanding of the virus’ transmission. The latter consideration causes concern. HMG PPE guidance 4 on the indications for use of FFP3 respirator relies on two assumptions. Firstly, its list of Aerosol Generating Procedures (AGPs)5 and high-risk areas are exhaustive. Secondly, the droplet theory of SARS-CoV-2 transmission 13,14 is correct. If either of these two postulates are incorrect and the role of aerosolisation transmission in SARS-CoV-2 is greater than currently thought, the current triaging system of respirators may result in HMG PPE guidance indicating a less effective form of RPE in a higher-than-expected risk setting. This rapid review aims to determine the evidence-base to the protective ability of respirators versus FRSMs to aerosolised SARS-CoV-2. ## METHODS This is a rapid systematic review of heterogenous studies with no summary estimate due to vastly different study protocols. ### Review Questionii Following the widely used PICO structure15, the research question was framed as: “In patient-facing healthcare workers delivering secondary care, what is the evidence behind UK Government PPE Guidance on surgical masks versus respirators for SARS-CoV-2 protection?” ### Preliminary Search for Similar Reviews Two similar systematic reviews were found.16,17 The focus of the Greenhalgh, et al. review 16 was on the efficacy of FRSMs and respirators in primary care; while Smith, et al.17 did not focus on SARS-CoV-2 prevention, rather respiratory disease in general. ### Search Strategyii “respirator”, “surgical mask”, “mask”, “FFP”, “FFP3”, “PPE”, “personal protective equipment” AND “viral”, “infection”, “respiratory”, “covid”, “covid–19”, “coronavirus”, “SARS-CoV-2” Authors PR and JS conducted the following search and eligibility check independently. ### Databases Searched 1. PubMed/MEDLINE. 2. Google Scholar. 3. Grey literature search- by searching for references behind the RPE guidelines of the UK, USA, and EU/EEAiii. 4. Snowball search- by reviewing the references of included and excluded articles, and the references of these references, for eligibility and appraisal. ### Eligibility criteria View this table: [Table 1](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/05/16/2020.05.13.20101139/T1) Table 1 Eligibility criteria for articles discovered through database searching. ### Critical Appraisal Authors independently used the relevant Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklists.18 All studies were included for qualitative analysis since it is noted that during a time of global crisis, the need for rapid evidence based on a novel virus may reduce the viability of gold-standard randomised controlled trials and shorten timelines for follow-up. The need to appraise studies thoroughly for “bad science” is vital during such a time, and therefore comments arising from critical appraisal of all articles included are attached to their results to allow for informed decision making. ### Consensus Meeting Disagreement resulted in full text review for eligibility and, if accepted, individual appraisals conducted independently. A third author was tasked to review for eligibility had there been any further disagreements on full text review. ### Data Management A PRISMA 19 Flow Diagram can be found on the following page. ### Data Extraction Data from the 9 included articles were extracted independently onto independent electronic spreadsheets. Databases were re-searched in the timeframe 11th – 30th April 2020 to identify new literature. An additional similar systematic review was discovered.20 This did not contain primary data so was not included, but is discussed as a similar study. ### Result Synthesis Due to the heterogeneity of study designs and the parameters of results, data extracted from accepted articles were compared directly. For laboratory studies, these data included study design, research question, masks/respirators tests, testing particle/pathogen, findings, and appraisal comments. For clinical studies, these data included setting, participants, interventions, outcomes, and limitations raised in appraisal. ### Patient and Public Involvement This study did not include patient or public involvement due to the rapid nature of the review. ### Data Management ![Figure 1](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2020/05/16/2020.05.13.20101139/F1.medium.gif) [Figure 1](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/05/16/2020.05.13.20101139/F1) Figure 1 PRISMA Flow Diagram19 displaying data management of search results. ## RESULTS ### Review of laboratory studies comparing respirators with FRSMs View this table: [Table 2](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/05/16/2020.05.13.20101139/T2) Table 2 Results of laboratory studies upon review, illuminating the study design, research question, masks compared, pathogens/particles tested, key findings, and appraisal ### Review of clinical trials comparing respirator with FRSMs View this table: [Table 3](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/05/16/2020.05.13.20101139/T3) Table 3 Results of clinical studies upon review, illuminating the study setting, participant size, masks compared, findings, and appraisal ## DISCUSSION ### • Statement of principal findings In all three laboratory studies of 14 different respirators and 12 surgical facemasks, respirators were significantly more effective than facemasks in protection factors, reduction factors, filter penetrations, and total inspiratory leakages for differing particle sizes, mean inspiratory flows, and breathing rates. Both humans and dummies were tested using live viruses and inert particles. In six clinical studies totalling 6,502 participants, there was no homogenous definition of “exposure” used to determine the efficacy of RPE. Therefore, it is difficult to define “safe”. The only statistically significant result found continuous use of respirators more effective in reducing clinical respiratory illness than targeted use or using surgical facemask. ### • Strengths and weaknesses of the study A CASP checklist critical appraisal was performed on this review. It was noted that there is a real paucity of evidence regarding RPE specific to SARS-CoV-2. HMG’s PPE guidance 4 was found to reference non-SARS-CoV-2 and non-FFP3 specific studies, therefore these were included for review. Any study design containing primary data was included. Non-English language studies were not included, though translated studies were screened. Due to the heterogeneity of study designs, and statistically insignificant results, it was not possible to perform a quantitative analysis. The potential harms of respirator use, such as pressure sores, is poorly documented and requires further study for mitigation and improvement. ### • Strengths and weaknesses in relation to other studies, discussing important differences in results This review found that just one study directly compares FRSMs and respirators. Ng, et al.27 conclude that FRSMs and N95s are equally effective. Limitations of this study include retrospective design, small sample size and a wide range of scenarios defined as ‘exposure’. There is no stratification of confounding variables such as age, sex, health, community exposure to SARS-CoV-2, or exposure to other COVID-19 patients. In the participants tested, none tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 in either intervention. It is unclear how quantitative analysis was performed. No retrospective significant difference was found in SARS-CoV-2 test results of these HCWs. While this does not prove either more effective, it also does not support the study conclusion that FRSMs and N95s are equally effective. Upon frequent re-searching of literature, a similar systematic review20 was published during the study period of this review. This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of four clinical RCTs comparing FRSM and N95 use. Three 23,24,26 of the four studies included in Bartoszko et al.’s review 20 were included in this review. That review used search terms specific to RCTs, not specific to SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19, and excluded laboratory studies or tests on mannikins. These authors also highlight the paucity and low-quality of evidence comparing FRSMs and respirators. Their review adjusted for the collation of results from cluster RCTs with individual RCTs. However, the review was not specific to SARS-CoV-2, nor was the meta-analysis of aggregate data specific to any coronavirus. Similarly to this review, that team draw conclusions from laboratory-confirmed illnesses of other viruses to postulate conclusions. Their review might be limited by the exclusion of other study designs, and it is unclear why three studies were included for analysis externally to their search strategy at a late stage, nor why an RCT 26 included in this review, providing statistically significant findings, was excluded by that review. ### • Meaning of the study: possible explanations and implications for clinicians and policymakers There is no high-quality evidence regarding the efficacy of RPE in protecting HCWs against SARS-CoV-2 transmission. There is uncertainty on the transmission mechanism of SARS-CoV-2.29 There are challenges to the droplet model of respiratory illness transmission.30 Procedures classified as AGPs vary in international guidance.7–11 RPE guidance is increasingly stock driven.8–11 Given this uncertainty, HMG PPE guidance should take a cautious approach rather than risk under-protecting staff. The evidence base suggests FFP3s may be a more effective form of RPE than FRSM. Due to the current uncertainty surrounding the transmission of SARS-CoV-2, a cautious approach to RPE may be favourable. If RPE must be triaged due to unavailability of stock, FRSM wearing HCWs may be exposed to aerosolised SARS-CoV-2. ### • Unanswered questions and future research Further rigorous study is required into the transmission of SARS-CoV-2, as recent studies liken it more to SARS-CoV–1 than to influenza. HMG PPE guidance is based off preparedness for an influenza pandemic. The validity of the droplet vs aerosol dichotomy of respiratory illness transmission is uncertain. It must be substantiated since it underpins HMG PPE guidance on RPE. Expedited research is required to further understand aerosol-generating procedures, including an effort to homogenate the classification of AGPs by different organisations as AGPs are the key indication for RPE triaging in HMG PPE guidance. HMG PPE guidance on the indications for use of FFP3 and FRSM is underpinned by the droplet theory of transmission of SARS-CoV-2, based on the flowchart below suggested by Coia, et al. in 2013.31 ![Figure 2](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2020/05/16/2020.05.13.20101139/F2.medium.gif) [Figure 2](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/05/16/2020.05.13.20101139/F2) Figure 2 Flowchart designed by Coia et al31 underpinning HMG PEE guidance.4 ## CONCLUSION HCWs away from work, self-isolating, or on sick leave due to COVID-19 reduce the health system’s capacity to deal with the ongoing pandemic 3. In order to reduce sickness burden on health systems, HCWs must be able to make informed, evidence-based decisions on their choice of PPE. This review concludes: 1. The evidence base for HMG’s PPE guidelines 4 is not based on SARS-CoV-2 and requires generalisation from low-quality evidence in which other pathogens/particles were tested. 2. There is a paucity of high-quality evidence regarding the efficacy of RPE specific to SARS-CoV-2. 3. HMG’s PPE guidelines are underpinned by the assumption of droplet transmission of SARS-CoV-2. It is evident from WHO 32, ECDC9–11, and CDC8 guidance that the indications for the use of RPE are not based solely on the protective abilities of respirators and FRSMs. Instead, a triaging system based on an expected shortage of global stock and supply, combined with current understanding of likelihood of exposure to aerosolised SARS-CoV-2 is used. There is active discussion regarding the droplet transmission of SARS-CoV-2 with an accepted uncertainty in understanding. Given this uncertainty, a cautious approach should be taken in the protection of HCWs. This review found that in all laboratory studies respirators were more protective to the wearer than FRSMs in all parameters tested. In the clinical studies reviewed, the only statistically significant finding was that respirators provided significant protection against bacterial-viral coinfection compared with FRSMs. No statistically significant evidence was found to support the conjecture that an FRSM might provide the same level of protection as a respirator against SARS-CoV-2, or indeed any tested live virus or inert submicron particle. Therefore, use of a respirator would be the more cautious option. While the triaging of RPE due to a lack of global stock is understandable and appropriate during the strains of a pandemic, it must be noted that by increasing the protection of some through the provision of respirators, HMG PPE guidance might be increasing the risk of COVID-19 faced by others. ## Data Availability The authors will support data sharing on request by emailing the corresponding author, PR. ## AUTHOR STATEMENT ### Author Contributions All authors meet ICMJE’s four criteria of authorship. PR conceived the idea, contributed to the methodology, conducted the search, extracted and appraised data, and wrote the article. JS contributed to the methodology, conducted the search, extracted and appraised data, and reviewed the article. RD contributed to the writing of the article, and provided review and guidance throughout. CA contributed to the writing of the article and provided review and guidance throughout. SH contributed to the development of concept, contributed to the writing of the article and provided review and guidancethroughout. All authors approved the final manuscript and article submission. #### Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge the following for their peer review of the completed manuscript prior to submission: Mr Isaac Florence MSc, isaacflorence{at}gmail.com Dr Rory Wilson MBBS BSc (Hons), University of Glasgow School of Medicine, Glasgow, G12 8QQ Miss Roseanna Jenks RM MA (Cantab), West Middlesex University Hospital, London, TW7 6AF #### Guarantorship The corresponding author attests that all listed authors meet authorship criteria and that no others meeting the criteria have been omitted. #### Copyright The Corresponding Author has the right to grant on behalf of all authors and does grant on behalf of all authors, a worldwide licence to the Publishers and its licensees in perpetuity, in all forms, formats and media (whether known now or created in the future), to i) publish, reproduce, distribute, display and store the Contribution, ii) translate the Contribution into other languages, create adaptations, reprints, include within collections and create summaries, extracts and/or, abstracts of the Contribution, iii) create any other derivative work(s) based on the Contribution, iv) to exploit all subsidiary rights in the Contribution, v) the inclusion of electronic links from the Contribution to third party material where-ever it may be located; and, vi) licence any third party to do any or all of the above. #### Competing Interests All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at [https://www.icmje.org/coi\_disclosure.pdf](https://www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf) and declare: no support from any organisation for the submitted work; no research grants and honorariums; RD has recently begun to design not-for-profit, small scale items of PPE for the amelioration of the widely documented PPE stock crisis, aside from RD’s core business; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work. #### Transparency and Ethics Approval The lead author (the manuscript’s guarantor) affirms that the manuscript is an honest, accurate, and transparent account of the study being reported; that no important aspects of the study have been omitted; and that any discrepancies from the study as originally planned (and, if relevant, registered) have been explained. Ethics approval was not required. #### Data Statement The authors will support data sharing on request by emailing the corresponding author, PR. ## Footnotes * prashanth.ramaraj{at}nhs.net * jonathan.super{at}nhs.net * ruben.doyle11{at}imperial.ac.uk * christopher.aylwin{at}nhs.net * shehan.hettiaratchy{at}nhs.net * i Please see Appendix 1 for HMG PPE guidance. * ii Please see Appendix 2 for a comparison of the various international standards of testing of respirators and surgical facemasks. * iii Bodies outside of the UK were searched since it was felt that these populations have similar demographics and pandemic response measures. * iv Full PICO strategy, and search strands available in Appendix 3. * Received May 13, 2020. * Revision received May 13, 2020. * Accepted May 16, 2020. * © 2020, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution 4.0 International), CC BY 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) ## REFERENCES 1. (1).Medscape Medical News. In Memoriam: Healthcare Workers Who Have Died of COVID-19 Available from:[https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/927976#vp_1](https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/927976#vp_1) [Accessed 14 Apr 2020]. 2. (2).Cook T, Kursumovic E, Lennane S. Deaths of NHS staff from covid-19 analysed HSJ. 2020. Available from: [https://www.hsj.co.uk/exclusive-deaths-of-nhs-staff-from-covid-19-analysed/7027471.article](https://www.hsj.co.uk/exclusive-deaths-of-nhs-staff-from-covid-19-analysed/7027471.article) [Accessed 30 Apr 2020]. 3. (3).World Health Organization. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) Situation Report – 82 Available from: [https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situationreports/20200411-sitrep-82-covid-19.pdf?sfvrsn=74a5d15_2](https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situationreports/20200411-sitrep-82-covid-19.pdf?sfvrsn=74a5d15_2). [Accessed: 14 Apr 2020]. 4. (4).Public Health England. Recommended PPE for healthcare workers by secondary care inpatient clinical setting, NHS and independent sector. Available from: [https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment\_data/file/879107/T1\_poster\_Recommended\_PPE\_for\_healthcare\_workers\_by\_secondary\_care\_clinical\_context.pdf](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment\_data/file/879107/T1\_poster\_Recommended\_PPE\_for\_healthcare\_workers\_by\_secondary_care_clinical_context.pdf) [Accessed: 12 Apr 2020]. 5. (5).Public Health England. COVID-19 personal protective equipment (PPE) Available from: [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/wuhan-novel-coronavirus-infection-preventionand-control/covid-19-personal-protective-equipment-ppe#ppe-guidance-by-healthcarecontext](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/wuhan-novel-coronavirus-infection-preventionand-control/covid-19-personal-protective-equipment-ppe#ppe-guidance-by-healthcarecontext) [Accessed: 12 Apr 2020]. 6. (6).Gawn J, Clayton M, Makison C, Crook B. 2008. Health and Safety Laboratory. Evaluating the protection afforded by surgical masks against influenza bioaerosols Available from: [https://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrpdf/rr619.pdf](https://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrpdf/rr619.pdf). [Accessed: 12 Apr 2020]. 7. (7).World Health Organization. Rational use of personal protective equipment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) Interim Guidance 27 February 2020 2020 Available from: [https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/331215/WHO-2019-nCov-IPCPPE_use-2020.1-eng.pdf](https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/331215/WHO-2019-nCov-IPCPPE_use-2020.1-eng.pdf). [Accessed: 17 Apr 2020]. 8. (8).Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. What is a Surgical N95 respirator and who needs to wear it? Available from: [https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/respiratoruse-faq.html](https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/respiratoruse-faq.html) [Accessed: 17 Apr 2020]. 9. (9).European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Guidance for wearing and removing personal protective equipment in healthcare settings for the care of patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19. Available from: [https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/COVID-19-guidance-wearing-and-removing-personal-protective-equipment-healthcare-settings-updated.pdf](https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/COVID-19-guidance-wearing-and-removing-personal-protective-equipment-healthcare-settings-updated.pdf). [Accessed: 17 Apr 2020]. 10. (10).European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. ECDC TECHNICAL REPORT. Infection prevention and control for COVID-19 in healthcare settings – first update. 12 March 2020. Available from: [https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/COVID-19-infection-prevention-and-control-healthcare-settings-march-2020.pdf](https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/COVID-19-infection-prevention-and-control-healthcare-settings-march-2020.pdf). [Accessed 16 Apr 2020]. 11. (11).European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. ECDC TECHNICAL REPORT. Infection prevention and control and preparedness for COVID-19 in healthcare settings. Second update – 31 March 2020. Available from: [https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/Infection-prevention-control-for-the-care-of-patients-with-2019-nCoV-healthcare-settings_update-31-March-2020.pdf](https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/Infection-prevention-control-for-the-care-of-patients-with-2019-nCoV-healthcare-settings_update-31-March-2020.pdf) [Accessed: 16 Apr 2020]. 12. (12).Unicef. COVID-19 impact assessment and outlook on personal protective equipment. An overview of the current and anticipated near-term effects of COVID-19 on UNICEF access to PPE supplies and the risk mitigations UNICEF has undertaken or plan to action 2020. Available from: [https://www.unicef.org/supply/stories/covid-19-impact-assessment-and-outlook-personal-protective-equipment](https://www.unicef.org/supply/stories/covid-19-impact-assessment-and-outlook-personal-protective-equipment) [Accessed: 16 Apr 2020]. 13. (13).World Health Organization. Infection prevention and control of epidemic- and pandemic- prone acute respiratory infections in health care. Available from: [https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/112656/9789241507134_eng.pdf;jsessionid=C6942C93F56E6C9907C363C76AD8E132?sequence=1](https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/112656/9789241507134_eng.pdf;jsessionid=C6942C93F56E6C9907C363C76AD8E132?sequence=1). [Accessed 17 Apr 2020]. 14. (14).Wells W. On Air-Borne Infection: Study 2. Droplets and Droplet Nuclei. American Journal of Epidemiology. 1934;20(3):611–618. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a118097&link_type=DOI) 15. (15).Richardson W, Wilson M, Nishikawa J, Hayward R. The well-built clinical question: a key to evidence-based decisions. APC J Club. 1995;123(3):A12–13. 16. (16).Greenhalgh T, Chan X, Khunti K, Durand-Moreau Q, Straube S, Devane D,et al. What is the efficacy of standard face masks compared to respirator masks in preventing COVID-type respiratory illnesses in primary care staff?. Available from: [https://www.cebm.net/wpcontent/uploads/2020/03/COVID-CAT-PPE-MASKS-7.pdf](https://www.cebm.net/wpcontent/uploads/2020/03/COVID-CAT-PPE-MASKS-7.pdf) [Accessed: 16 Apr 2020]. 17. (17).Smith J, MacDougall C, Johnstone J, Copes R, Schwartz B, Garber G. Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. CMAJ 2016;188(8):567–74. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoiY21haiI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czo5OiIxODgvOC81NjciO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMC8wNS8xNi8yMDIwLjA1LjEzLjIwMTAxMTM5LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 18. (18).Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. CASP Checklists. Available from: [https://caspuk.net/casp-tools-checklists/](https://caspuk.net/casp-tools-checklists/) [Accessed: 17 Apr 2020]. 19. (19).PRISMA. PRISMA Flow Diagram. Available from: [http://prisma-statement.org/PRISMAStatement/FlowDiagram](http://prisma-statement.org/PRISMAStatement/FlowDiagram) [Accessed: 17 Apr 2020]. 20. (20).Bartozsko JJ, Farooqi MAM, Alhazzani W, Loeb M. Medical masks vs N95 respirators for preventing COVID-19 in healthcare workers: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Influenza Other Respir Viruses. 2020 Available from: [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/irv.12745#support-information-section](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/irv.12745#support-information-section). [Accessed: 30 Apr 2020]. 21. [21].Lee S, Hwang D, Li H, Tsai C, Chen C, Chen J. Particle Size-Selective Assessment of Protection of European Standard FFP Respirators and Surgical Masks against Particles-Tested with Human Subjects Available from: [https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jhe/2016/8572493/](https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jhe/2016/8572493/). [Accessed: 16 Apr 2020]. 22. [22].He X, Grinshpun S, Reponen T, McKay R, Bergman M, Zhuang Z. Effects of Breathing Frequency and Flow Rate on the Total Inward Leakage of an Elastomeric Half-Mask Donned on an Advanced Manikin Headform. 2013. 23. [23].Radonovich L, Simberkoff M, Bessesen M, Brown A, Cummings D, Gaydos C, et al. N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2019;322(9): 824–833. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jama.2019.11645&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F05%2F16%2F2020.05.13.20101139.atom) 24. [24].Loeb M, Dafoe N, Mahony J, John M, Sarabia A, Glavin V, et al., Surgical mask vs N95 respirator for preventing influenza among health care workers: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2009;302(17): 1865–71. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jama.2009.1466&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19797474&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F05%2F16%2F2020.05.13.20101139.atom) 25. [25].MacIntyre C, Wang Q, Seale H, Yang P, Shi W, Gao Z, et al., A randomized clinical trial of three options for N95 respirators and medical masks in health workers. Am J Respir Crit Care Med.2013;187(9): 960–6. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1164/rccm.201207-1164OC&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23413265&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F05%2F16%2F2020.05.13.20101139.atom) 26. [26].MacIntyre C, Wang Q, Rahman B, Seale H, Ridda I, Gao Z, et al., Efficacy of face masks and respirators in preventing upper respiratory tract bacterial colonization and co-infection in hospital healthcare workers. Prev Med.2014; 69165. 27. [27].Ng K, Poon B, Kiat Puar T, Shan Quah J, Lowh W, Tan T, et al., COVID-19 and the Risk to Health Care Workers: A Case Report. Ann Intern Med.2020; (Epub ahead of print). 28. (28).Loeb M, McGeer A, Henry B, Ofner M, Rose D, Hlywka T, et al. SARS among Critical Care Nurses, Toronto. Emerg Infect Dis. 2004;10(2): 251–255. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3201/eid1002.030838&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=15030692&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F05%2F16%2F2020.05.13.20101139.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000188867700017&link_type=ISI) 29. (29).van Doremalen; N.;Morris, DH.; Holbrook, MG.; Gamble, A.; et al. Aerosol and Surface Stability of SARS-CoV-2 as Compared with SARS-CoV-1. 2020. N Engl J Med. 382: 1564–1567. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJMc2004973&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F05%2F16%2F2020.05.13.20101139.atom) 30. (30).Bourouiba, L. Turbulent Gas Clouds and Respiratory Pathogen Emissions: Potential Implications for Reducing Transmission of COVID-19. JAMA. 2020;(*Pre-print*). 31. (31).Coia J, Ritchie L, Adisesh A, Makison C, Bradley C, Bunyan D, et al. Guidance on the use of respiratory and facial protection equipment. J Hosp Infect. 2013;85(3): 170–82. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F05%2F16%2F2020.05.13.20101139.atom) 32. (32).World Health Organization.Modes of transmission of virus causing COVID-19: implications for IPC precaution recommendations. 2020. Available from: [https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/modes-of-transmission-of-virus-causing-covid-19-implications-for-ipc-precaution-recommendations](https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/modes-of-transmission-of-virus-causing-covid-19-implications-for-ipc-precaution-recommendations). [Accessed: 17 Apr 2020].