PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Toomey, E
AU  - Conway, Y
AU  - Burton, C
AU  - Smith, S
AU  - Smalle, M
AU  - Chan, XH
AU  - Adisesh, A
AU  - Tanveer, S
AU  - Ross, L
AU  - Thomson, I
AU  - Devane, D
AU  - Greenhalgh, T
TI  - Extended use or re-use of single-use surgical masks and filtering facepiece respirators: A rapid evidence review
AID  - 10.1101/2020.06.04.20121947
DP  - 2020 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2020.06.04.20121947
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/06/05/2020.06.04.20121947.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/06/05/2020.06.04.20121947.full
AB  - Background The COVID-19 pandemic has led to unprecedented demand for personal protective equipment. Shortages of surgical masks and filtering facepiece respirators has led to the extended use or re-use of single-use respirators and surgical masks by frontline healthcare workers. The evidence base underpinning such practices has been questioned.Objectives To summarise guidance and synthesise systematic review evidence on extended use, re-use or reprocessing of single-use surgical masks or filtering facepiece respirators.Methods A targeted search of the World Health Organization, European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Public Health England websites was conducted to identify guidance. Four databases (Medline, Pubmed, Epistemonikos, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews) and three preprint repositories (Litcovid, MedRxiv and Open Science Framework) were searched for relevant systematic reviews. Record screening and data extraction was conducted by two reviewers. Quality of included systematic reviews was appraised using the AMSTAR-2 checklist. Findings were integrated and narratively synthesised to highlight the extent to which key claims in guidance documents were supported by research evidence.Results Six guidance documents were identified. All note that extended use or re-use of single-use surgical masks and respirators (with or without reprocessing) should be considered only in situations of critical shortage. Extended use was generally favoured over re-use because of reduced risk of contact transmission. Four high-quality systematic reviews were included: three focused on reprocessing (decontamination) of N95 respirators and one focused on reprocessing of surgical masks. There was limited evidence on the impact of extended use on masks and respirators. Vaporised hydrogen peroxide and ultraviolet germicidal irradiation were highlighted as the most promising reprocessing methods, but evidence on the relative efficacy and safety of different methods was limited. We found no well-established methods for reprocessing respirators at scale.Conclusions There is limited evidence on the impact of extended use and re-use of surgical masks and respirators. Where extended use or re-use is being practiced, healthcare organisations should ensure that policies and systems are in place to ensure these practices are carried out safely and in line with available guidance.Competing Interest StatementSS recently retired from a scientific research position at a major manufacturer of respiratory protective equipment.Clinical Protocols https://osf.io/7c6rs/ Funding StatementNo external funding was receivedAuthor 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:N/AAll 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).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.YesThis is a systematic review with narrative synthesis therefore the data associated is minimal. All supplementary files are provided. Protocols and raw data (e.g. data extraction files) are available on OSF at https://osf.io/7c6rs/ https://osf.io/7c6rs/