Cited by 339Infection Control and VentilationInfluenza Virus Research StudiesRespiratory viral infections research

Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
Long, Youlin, Hu, Tengyue, Liu, Liqin, Chen, Rui, Guo, Qiong, Yang, Liu, Cheng, Yifan, Huang, Jin +1 more·2020·Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Abstract

Objective: Previous meta‐analyses concluded that there was insufficient evidence to determine the effect of N95 respirators. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks for prevention of influenza by collecting randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: We searched PubMed, EMbase and The Cochrane Library from the inception to January 27, 2020 to identify relevant systematic reviews. The RCTs included in systematic reviews were identified. Then we searched the latest published RCTs from the above three databases and searched ClinicalTrials.gov for unpublished RCTs. Two reviewers independently extracted the data and assessed risk of bias. Meta‐analyses were conducted to calculate pooled estimates by using RevMan 5.3 software. Results: A total of six RCTs involving 9 171 participants were included. There were no statistically significant differences in preventing laboratory‐confirmed influenza (RR = 1.09, 95% CI 0.92‐1.28, P > .05), laboratory‐confirmed respiratory viral infections (RR = 0.89, 95% CI 0.70‐1.11), laboratory‐confirmed respiratory infection (RR = 0.74, 95% CI 0.42‐1.29) and influenzalike illness (RR = 0.61, 95% CI 0.33‐1.14) using N95 respirators and surgical masks. Meta‐analysis indicated a protective effect of N95 respirators against laboratory‐confirmed bacterial colonization (RR = 0.58, 95% CI 0.43‐0.78). Conclusion: The use of N95 respirators compared with surgical masks is not associated with a lower risk of laboratory‐confirmed influenza. It suggests that N95 respirators should not be recommended for general public and nonhigh‐risk medical staff those are not in close contact with influenza patients or suspected patients.

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 · 10.1111/jebm.12381

Cites

40 of 40 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?

  • The authors of Long 2020 do not report a rationale for the exclusion in the sensitivity analysis, and do not report on exclusion of the studies with low weighting.

    “The authors do not report a rationale for the exclusion in the sensitivity analysis, and do not report on exclusion of the studies with low weighting, which arguably would be more relevant in a sensitivity analysis.”

    From Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses (2023) · cites this paper as Long 2020

    Section 2.5 (Data analysis; page not provided) gives a rationale for the sensitivity analysis: testing robustness by excluding individual studies from each forest plot. Section 3.3 (Effectiveness; page not provided) reports results after excluding each trial for some outcomes, but does not separately report a sensitivity analysis focused on low-weight studies. Thus, the claim that no rationale is reported is overstated, while the narrower point about low-weight-focused reporting is supported. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Long 2020 found no difference between N95/P2 respirators and medical/surgical masks for either influenza (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.28) or respiratory viral infections (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.11).

    “A recent meta‐analysis included five trials comparing N95/P2 respirators with medical/surgical masks and found no difference between groups for either influenza (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.28), or respiratory viral infections (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.11) (Long 2020).”

    From Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses (2023) · cites this paper as Long 2020

    Section 3.3 reports both risk ratios and finds no statistically significant difference for either outcome. But the paper included six RCTs overall, not five: five reported laboratory-confirmed influenza, while four reported respiratory viral infections (Abstract; §3.3). (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • By excluding Loeb 2009, Long 2020 reported a significant protective effect against viral infections (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.98).

    “By excluding Loeb 2009 (an open, non‐inferiority RCT that compared medical/surgical masks with N95 respirators in protecting HCWs against influenza), the authors reported a significant protective effect against viral infections (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.98).”

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. Janssen L, Ettinger H, Graham S, Shaffer R, Zhuang Z. The use of respi- rators to reduce inhalation of airborne biological agents. J Occup Envi- ron Hyg. 2013;10(8):D97-d103.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Long, Y., Hu, T., Liu, L., Chen, R., Guo, Q., Yang, L., Cheng, Y., Huang, J., & Du, L.
Affiliations
  • Sichuan University (CN)
  • Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine (CN)
  • Chinese Evidence‐Based Medicine Center West China Hospital Sichuan University Chengdu P.R. China
Corresponding author
  • Huang, Jin
  • Du, Liang
Venue
Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2020-03-13
Volume
13
Issue
2
Pages
93-101
ISSN
  • 1756-5383 (ISSN-L)
  • 1756-5391
OpenAlex
W3011632109
Cited by
339
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 41 · 2022: 42 · 2021: 81 · 2020: 150
FWCI
11.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Natural Science Foundation of China (81873197, 81403276)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Infection Control and Ventilation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Influenza Virus Research Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Respiratory viral infections research
Keywords
N95 respirators, surgical masks, influenza prevention, respiratory protection, laboratory-confirmed influenza, respiratory viral infections, bacterial colonization, mask effectiveness
MeSH terms
Humans, Influenza, Human, Masks, Respiratory Protective Devices, Randomized Controlled Trials 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