Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review: source TheLancet.com
Articles www.thelancet.com Vol 395 June 27, 20201973 Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Derek K Chu, Elie A Akl, Stephanie Duda, Karla Solo, Sally Yaacoub, Holger J Schünemann, on behalf of the COVID-19 Systematic Urgent Review Group Effort (SURGE) study authors
Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes COVID-19 and is spread person-to-person through close contact. We aimed to investigate the effects of physical distance, face masks, and eye protection on virus transmission in health-care and non-health-care (eg, community) settings. Methods We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the optimum distance for avoiding person-to-person virus transmission and to assess the use of face masks and eye protection to prevent transmission of viruses. We obtained data for SARS-CoV-2 and the betacoronaviruses that cause severe acute respiratory syndrome, and Middle East respiratory syndrome from 21 standard WHO-specific and COVID-19-specific sources. We searched these data sources from database inception to May 3, 2020, with no restriction by language, for comparative studies and for contextual factors of acceptability, feasibility, resource use, and equity. We screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in duplicate. We did frequentist and Bayesian meta-analyses and random-effects meta-regressions. We rated the certainty of evidence according to Cochrane methods and the GRADE approach. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020177047. Findings Our search identified 172 observational studies across 16 countries and six continents, with no randomised controlled trials and 44 relevant comparative studies in health-care and non-health-care settings (n=25697 patients). Transmission of viruses was lower with physical distancing of 1 m or more, compared with a distance of less than 1 m (n=10736, pooled adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0·18, 95% CI 0·09 to 0·38; risk difference [RD] –10·2%, 95% CI –11·5 to –7·5; moderate certainty); protection was increased as distance was lengthened (change in relative risk [RR] 2·02 per m; pinteraction=0·041; moderate certainty). Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection (n=2647; aOR 0·15, 95% CI 0·07 to 0·34, RD –14·3%, –15·9 to –10·7; low certainty), with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks or similar (eg, reusable 12–16-layer cotton masks; pinteraction=0·090; posterior probability >95%, low certainty). Eye protection also was associated with less infection (n=3713; aOR 0·22, 95% CI 0·12 to 0·39, RD –10·6%, 95% CI –12·5 to –7·7; low certainty). Unadjusted studies and subgroup and sensitivity analyses showed similar findings.Interpretation The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis support physical distancing of 1 m or more and provide quantitative estimates for models and contact tracing to inform policy. Optimum use of face masks, respirators, and eye protection in public and health-care settings should be informed by these findings and contextual factors. Robust randomised trials are needed to better inform the evidence for these interventions, but this systematic appraisal of currently best available evidence might inform interim guidance.Funding World Health Organization.Copyright © 2020 World Health Organization. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article published under the CC BY 3.0 IGO license which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. In any use of this article, there should be no suggestion that WHO endorses any specific organisation, products or services. The use of the WHO logo is not permitted. This notice should be preserved along with the article’s original URL.
Introduction As of May 28, 2020, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has infected more than 5·85 million individuals worldwide and caused more than 359000 deaths.1 Emergency lockdowns have been initiated in countries across the globe, and the effect on health, wellbeing, business, and other aspects of daily life are felt throughout societies and by individuals. With no effective pharmacological interventions or vaccine available in the imminent future, reducing the rate of infection (ie, flattening the curve) is a priority, and prevention of infection is the best approach to achieve this aim.SARS-CoV-2 spreads person-to-person through close contact and causes COVID-19. It has not been solved if Lancet 2020; 395: 1973–87Published OnlineJune 1, 2020 https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0140-6736(20)31142-9See Comment page 1950*Study authors are listed in the appendix and at the end of the ArticleDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact(D K Chu MD, S Duda MSc, K Solo MSc, Prof E A Akl MD, Prof H J Schünemann MD), and Department of Medicine(D K Chu, Prof H J Schünemann), McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; The Research Institute of St Joe’s Hamilton, Hamilton, ON, Canada (D K Chu); Department of Internal Medicine (Prof E A Akl), and Clinical Research Institute(Prof E A Akl, S Yaacoub MPH), American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon; and Michael G DeGroote Cochrane Canada and GRADE Centres, Hamilton, ON, Canada(Prof H J Schünemann) Correspondence to: Prof Holger J Schünemann, Michael G DeGroote Cochrane Canada and McMaster GRADE Centres, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8N 3Z5, [email protected] Onlinefor appendix
Research in context
Evidence before this studyWe searched 21 databases and resources from inception to May 3, 2020, with no restriction by language, for studies of any design evaluating physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent transmission of the viruses that cause COVID-19 and related diseases (eg, severe acute respiratory syndrome [SARS] and Middle East respiratory syndrome [MERS]) between infected individuals and people close to them (eg, household members, caregivers, and health-care workers). Previous related meta-analyses have focused on randomised trials and reported imprecise data for common respiratory viruses such as seasonal influenza, rather than the pandemic and epidemic betacoronaviruses causative of COVID-19 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 [SARS-CoV-2]), SARS (SARS-CoV), or MERS (MERS-CoV). Other meta-analyses have focused on interventions in the health-care setting and have not included non-health-care (eg, community) settings. Our search did not retrieve any systematic review of information on physical distancing, face masks, or eye protection to prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV, and MERS-CoV.Added value of this studyWe did a systematic review of 172 observational studies in health-care and non-health-care settings across 16 countries and six continents; 44 comparative studies were included in a meta-analysis, including 25697 patients with COVID-19, SARS, or MERS. Our findings are, to the best of our knowledge, the first to rapidly synthesise all direct information on COVID-19 and, therefore, provide the best available evidence to inform optimum use of three common and simple interventions to help reduce the rate of infection and inform non-pharmaceutical interventions, including pandemic mitigation in non-health-care settings. Physical distancing of 1 m or more was associated with a much lower risk of infection, as was use of face masks (including N95 respirators or similar and surgical or similar masks [eg, 12–16-layer cotton or gauze masks]) and eye protection (eg, goggles or face shields). Added benefits are likely with even larger physical distances (eg, 2 m or more based on modelling) and might be present with N95 or similar respirators versus medical masks or similar. Across 24 studies in health-care and non-health-care settings of contextual factors to consider when formulating recommendations, most stakeholders found these personal protection strategies acceptable, feasible, and reassuring but noted harms and contextual challenges, including frequent discomfort and facial skin breakdown, high resource use linked with the potential to decrease equity, increased difficulty communicating clearly, and perceived reduced empathy of care providers by those they were caring for.Implications of all the available evidenceIn view of inconsistent guidelines by various organisations based on limited information, our findings provide some clarification and have implications for multiple stakeholders. The risk for infection is highly dependent on distance to the individual infected and the type of face mask and eye protection worn. From a policy and public health perspective, current policies of at least 1 m physical distancing seem to be strongly associated with a large protective effect, and distances of 2 m could be more effective. These data could also facilitate harmonisation of the definition of exposed (eg, within 2 m), which has implications for contact tracing. The quantitative estimates provided here should inform disease-modelling studies, which are important for planning pandemic response efforts. Policy makers around the world should strive to promptly and adequately address equity implications for groups with currently limited access to face masks and eye protection. For health-care workers and administrators, our findings suggest that N95 respirators might be more strongly associated with protection from viral transmission than surgical masks. Both N95 and surgical masks have a stronger association with protection compared with single-layer masks. Eye protection might also add substantial protection. For the general public, evidence shows that physical distancing of more than 1 m is highly effective and that face masks are associated with protection, even in non-health-care settings, with either disposable surgical masks or reusable 12–16-layer cotton ones, although much of this evidence was on mask use within households and among contacts of cases. Eye protection is typically underconsidered and can be effective in community settings. However, no intervention, even when properly used, was associated with complete protection from infection. Other basic measures (eg, hand hygiene) are still needed in addition to physical distancing and use of face masks and eye protection.
If you wish to read the complete study go to https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9.pdf