About: Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Facets (new session)
Description
Metadata
Settings
- owl:sameAs
- Inference Rule:

About: Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta‐analysis Goto Sponge NotDistinct Permalink

An Entity of Type : schema:ScholarlyArticle, within Data Space : covidontheweb.inria.fr associated with source document(s)

Attributes	Values
type	Academic Article research paper schema:ScholarlyArticle
isDefinedBy	Covid-on-the-Web dataset
has title	Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Creator	Chen, Rui Yang, Liu Cheng, Yifan Du, Liang Guo, Qiong Hu, Tengyue Huang, Jin Liu, Liqin Long, Youlin
Source	Medline; PMC
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 Then we searched the latest published RCTs from the above three databases and searched ClinicalTrials.gov for unpublished RCTs.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.
has issue date	2020-03-13(xsd:dateTime)
bibo:doi	10.1111/jebm.12381
bibo:pmid	32167245
has license	no-cc
sha1sum (hex)	bab2fe9e5a01dec103a7023b0eef0e7587a26012
schema:url	https://doi.org/10.1111/jebm.12381
resource representing a document's title	Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
has PubMed Central identifier	PMC7228345
has PubMed identifier	32167245
schema:publication	J Evid Based Med
resource representing a document's body	covid:bab2fe9e5a01dec103a7023b0eef0e7587a26012#body_text
is schema:about of	named entity 'surgical masks' named entity 'prevention' named entity 'randomized controlled trials' named entity 'effectiveness' named entity 'RCTs' named entity 'meta-analysis' named entity 'surgical masks' named entity 'N95' named entity 'influenza' named entity 'insufficient evidence' named entity 'systematic review' named entity 'respirators' named entity 'meta-analysis' named entity 'PRISMA' named entity 'surgical masks' named entity 'influenza' named entity 'respiratory viral infections' named entity 'meta-analysis' named entity 'N95' named entity 'respiratory infection' named entity 'surgical masks' named entity 'PubMed' named entity 'statistically significant' named entity 'N95' named entity 'meta-analysis' named entity 'RCTs' named entity 'meta-analysis' named entity 'study population' named entity 'N95' named entity 'outcome data' named entity 'meta-analyses' named entity 'retrospective study' named entity 'meta-analysis' named entity 'N95' named entity 'CDC' named entity 'N95' named entity 'subgroup analysis' named entity 'airborne particles' named entity 'selective reporting' named entity 'meta-analysis' named entity 'Chughtai' named entity 'systematic reviews' named entity 'N95' named entity 'Relative risk' named entity 'respirator' named entity 'N95' named entity 'airborne particles' named entity 'influenza' named entity 'surgical masks' named entity 'sample size' named entity 'controlled study' named entity 'Centers for Disease Control and Prevention' named entity 'influenza' named entity 'respiratory illness' named entity 'Sokol' named entity 'literature search' named entity 'N95' named entity 'PubMed' named entity 'systematic reviews' named entity 'study heterogeneity' named entity 'effect measure' named entity 'systematic reviews' named entity 'surgical masks' named entity 'surgical masks' named entity 'severe acute respiratory syndrome' named entity 'statistical power' named entity 'meta-analysis' named entity 'meta-analyses' named entity 'N95' named entity 'WHO' named entity 'influenza' named entity 'surgical masks' named entity 'systematic reviews'

Faceted Search & Find service v1.13.91 as of Mar 24 2020

Alternative Linked Data Documents: Sponger | ODE Content Formats:

RDF

ODATA

Microdata

About

OpenLink Virtuoso version 07.20.3229 as of Jul 10 2020, on Linux (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu), Single-Server Edition (94 GB total memory)
Data on this page belongs to its respective rights holders.
Virtuoso Faceted Browser Copyright © 2009-2024 OpenLink Software