MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3113421202 · doi:10.1016/j.ijnsa.2020.100013

A rapid review of the use of face mask in preventing the spread of COVID-19

2020· review· en· W3113421202 on OpenAlexaff
Mary Abboah‐Offei, Yakubu Salifu, Bisi Adewale, Jonathan Bayuo, Rasheed Ofosu-Poku, Edwina Beryl Addo Opare-Lokko

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Nursing Studies Advances · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfection Control and Ventilation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Face masksFace (sociological concept)Computer scienceVirologyMedicineSociologyOutbreakSocial scienceInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction The original use of face masks was to help protect surgical wounds from staff-generated nasal and oral bacteria. Currently governments across the world have instituted the mandatory use of masks and other face coverings so that face masks now find much broader usage in situations where close contact of people is frequent and inevitable, particularly inside public transport facilities, shopping malls and workplaces in response to the COVID-19. Objective We conducted a rapid review to investigate the impact face mask use has had in controlling transmission of respiratory viral infections. Method A rapid review was conducted in line with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidance. Five electronic databases (CINAHL, Embase, Medline, PsycINFO and Global Health) were searched from database inception to date, using pre-defined search terms. We included all studies of any design and used descriptive analysis to report summary statistics of search results. Data were extracted including sample characteristics, study design, respiratory virus being controlled, type of face masks used and their effectiveness. Results 58 out of 84 studies met the inclusion criteria, of which 13 were classified as systematic reviews and 45 were quantitative studies (comprising randomised controlled trials, retrospective cohort studies, case control, cross-sectional, surveys, observational and descriptive studies). N = 27 studies were conducted amongst healthcare workers wearing face masks, n = 19 studies among the general population, n = 9 studies among healthcare workers the general population and patients wearing masks, and n = 3 among only patients. Face masks use have shown a great potential for preventing respiratory virus transmission including COVID-19. Conclusion Regardless of the type, setting, or who wears the face mask, it serves primarily a dual preventive purpose; protecting oneself from getting viral infection and protecting others. Therefore, if everyone wears a face mask in public, it offers a double barrier against COVID-19 transmission.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.007
Bibliometrics0.0180.019
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.204
GPT teacher head0.482
Teacher spread0.278 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations188
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Nursing Studies AdvancesSame topicInfection Control and VentilationFrench-language works237,207