Cited by 447Infection Control and VentilationInfluenza Virus Research StudiesInfection Control in Healthcare

N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Open access
Radonovich, Lewis J., Simberkoff, Michael S., Bessesen, Mary T., Brown, Alexandria C., Cummings, Derek A. T., Gaydos, Charlotte A., Los, Jenna G., Krosche, Amanda E. +8 more·2019·JAMA

Abstract

Importance: Clinical studies have been inconclusive about the effectiveness of N95 respirators and medical masks in preventing health care personnel (HCP) from acquiring workplace viral respiratory infections. Objective: To compare the effect of N95 respirators vs medical masks for prevention of influenza and other viral respiratory infections among HCP. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cluster randomized pragmatic effectiveness study conducted at 137 outpatient study sites at 7 US medical centers between September 2011 and May 2015, with final follow-up in June 2016. Each year for 4 years, during the 12-week period of peak viral respiratory illness, pairs of outpatient sites (clusters) within each center were matched and randomly assigned to the N95 respirator or medical mask groups. Interventions: Overall, 1993 participants in 189 clusters were randomly assigned to wear N95 respirators (2512 HCP-seasons of observation) and 2058 in 191 clusters were randomly assigned to wear medical masks (2668 HCP-seasons) when near patients with respiratory illness. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza. Secondary outcomes included incidence of acute respiratory illness, laboratory-detected respiratory infections, laboratory-confirmed respiratory illness, and influenzalike illness. Adherence to interventions was assessed. Results: Among 2862 randomized participants (mean [SD] age, 43 [11.5] years; 2369 [82.8%]) women), 2371 completed the study and accounted for 5180 HCP-seasons. There were 207 laboratory-confirmed influenza infection events (8.2% of HCP-seasons) in the N95 respirator group and 193 (7.2% of HCP-seasons) in the medical mask group (difference, 1.0%, [95% CI, -0.5% to 2.5%]; P = .18) (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.18 [95% CI, 0.95-1.45]). There were 1556 acute respiratory illness events in the respirator group vs 1711 in the mask group (difference, -21.9 per 1000 HCP-seasons [95% CI, -48.2 to 4.4]; P = .10); 679 laboratory-detected respiratory infections in the respirator group vs 745 in the mask group (difference, -8.9 per 1000 HCP-seasons, [95% CI, -33.3 to 15.4]; P = .47); 371 laboratory-confirmed respiratory illness events in the respirator group vs 417 in the mask group (difference, -8.6 per 1000 HCP-seasons [95% CI, -28.2 to 10.9]; P = .39); and 128 influenzalike illness events in the respirator group vs 166 in the mask group (difference, -11.3 per 1000 HCP-seasons [95% CI, -23.8 to 1.3]; P = .08). In the respirator group, 89.4% of participants reported "always" or "sometimes" wearing their assigned devices vs 90.2% in the mask group. Conclusions and Relevance: Among outpatient health care personnel, N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01249625.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.2019.11645

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 27 · Cited by 447

Authors
Radonovich, L. J., Simberkoff, M. S., Bessesen, M. T., Brown, A. C., Cummings, D. A. T., Gaydos, C. A., Los, J. G., Krosche, A. E., Gibert, C. L., Gorse, G. J., Nyquist, A.-C., Reich, N. G., Rodriguez-Barradas, M. C., Price, C. S., Perl, T. M., & for the ResPECT investigators
Affiliations
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US)
  • VA NY Harbor Healthcare System (US)
  • VA Eastern Colorado Health Care System (US)
  • University of Massachusetts Amherst (US)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • George Washington University (US)
  • VA St. Louis Health Care System (US)
  • Children's Hospital Colorado (US)
  • Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, Texas
  • Denver Health Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Radonovich, Lewis J.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2019-09-03
Volume
322
Issue
9
Pages
824
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2971605747
Cited by
447
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 38 · 2021: 94 · 2020: 241 · 2019: 2 · 2017: 1
FWCI
68.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Infection Control and Ventilation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Influenza Virus Research Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Infection Control in Healthcare
Keywords
N95 respirators, surgical masks, influenza prevention, healthcare workers, occupational infection prevention, respiratory viral infections, acute respiratory illness, outpatient clinics, mask compliance, respiratory protection, workplace infection control, hand hygiene, antiviral prophylaxis, influenza antiviral therapy, influenza C
MeSH terms
Adult, Ambulatory Care, Female, Health Personnel, Humans, Influenza, Human, Male, Masks, Middle Aged, Respiratory Protective Devices, Respiratory Tract Infections, Incidence, Occupational Exposure, Infection Control, Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review