Cited by 298Infection Control and VentilationInfection Control in HealthcareOccupational Health and Safety in Workplaces

Effectiveness of masks and respirators against respiratory infections in healthcare workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
Offeddu, Vittoria, Yung, Chee Fu, Low, Mabel Sheau Fong, Tam, Clarence C·2017·Clinical Infectious Diseases

Abstract

This systematic review and meta-analysis quantified the protective effect of facemasks and respirators against respiratory infections among healthcare workers. Relevant articles were retrieved from Pubmed, EMBASE, and Web of Science. Meta-analyses were conducted to calculate pooled estimates. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) indicated a protective effect of masks and respirators against clinical respiratory illness (CRI) (risk ratio [RR] = 0.59; 95% confidence interval [CI]:0.46-0.77) and influenza-like illness (ILI) (RR = 0.34; 95% CI:0.14-0.82). Compared to masks, N95 respirators conferred superior protection against CRI (RR = 0.47; 95% CI: 0.36-0.62) and laboratory-confirmed bacterial (RR = 0.46; 95% CI: 0.34-0.62), but not viral infections or ILI. Meta-analysis of observational studies provided evidence of a protective effect of masks (OR = 0.13; 95% CI: 0.03-0.62) and respirators (OR = 0.12; 95% CI: 0.06-0.26) against severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). This systematic review and meta-analysis supports the use of respiratory protection. However, the existing evidence is sparse and findings are inconsistent within and across studies. Multicentre RCTs with standardized protocols conducted outside epidemic periods would help to clarify the circumstances under which the use of masks or respirators is most warranted.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/cid/cix681

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Offeddu 2017 concluded that masks (either N95/P2 respirators or medical/surgical masks) were effective against clinical respiratory infections (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.77) and influenza-like illness (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.82).

    “A similar meta‐analysis, Offeddu 2017, based on two trials concluded that masks (either N95/P2 respirators or medical/surgical masks) were effective against clinical respiratory infections (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.77) and ILI (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.82) (MacIntyre 2011; MacIntyre 2015).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Fung WK, Yu PL. SARS case-fatality rates. CMAJ 2003; 169:277-8.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Offeddu, V., Yung, C. F., Low, M. S. F., & Tam, C. C.
Affiliations
  • National University of Singapore (SG)
  • KK Women's and Children's Hospital (SG)
Corresponding author
Offeddu, Vittoria
Venue
Clinical Infectious Diseases
Published
2017-08-07
Volume
65
Issue
11
Pages
1934-1942
ISSN
  • 1058-4838 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-6591
OpenAlex
W2743706615
Cited by
297
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 79 · 2020: 134 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2
FWCI
7.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Infectious Diseases (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Infection Control and Ventilation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Infection Control in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Occupational Health and Safety in Workplaces
Keywords
face masks, respirators, N95 respirators, respiratory infections, healthcare workers, occupational infection prevention, influenza-like illness, bacterial respiratory infections, SARS, respiratory protection
MeSH terms
Health Personnel, Humans, Influenza, Human, Masks, Ventilators, Mechanical, Respiratory Protective Devices, Respiratory Tract Infections, Virus Diseases, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Occupational Exposure, Infection Control, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, Observational Studies as Topic

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