MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3116877469 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-16701/v3

Concerns around public health recommendations on face mask use among individuals who are not medically diagnosed with COVID-19 supported by a systematic review search for evidence.

2020· review· en· W3116877469 on OpenAlexaff
Keshini Madara Marasinghe

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfection Control and Ventilation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Face (sociological concept)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Face masksPublic healthMedicineFamily medicinePsychologyNursingVirologySociologySocial sciencePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract BackgroundContradicting and inconsistent public health recommendations regarding face mask use have been provided to individuals who are not yet medically diagnosed with COVID-19, which is significantly a large population. Face masks are being used by individuals who are not medically diagnosed with COVID-19 as a means to limit the spread of COVID-19 in several countries around the world. While some countries recommend the use of face masks, other countries strictly do not recommend their use to limit the transmission of COVID-19 among individuals who are not medically diagnosed with COVID-19. This paper critically analyses public health recommendations provided to this population regarding face mask use by public health and health professionals of different countries supported by a systematic review that searched for evidence on face mask use among this specific population in limiting the spread of COVID-19.MethodsTo carry out the systematic review portion of this paper, databases Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Google Scholar, PubMed, and Scopus were searched for relevant studies. Two groups of keywords were combined: those relating to face masks and COVID-19.ResultsThe systematic review search did not find any studies that investigated the effectiveness of face mask use in limiting the spread of COVID-19 among those who are not medically diagnosed with COVID-19 to support current public health recommendations.ConclusionsThe finding of the systematic review search, which is a lack of scientific evidence, questions the basis of inconsistent public health recommendations that have been provided to the public at a very early yet a crucial stage of an outbreak. A closer attention need to be given to the procedures and practices behind providing public health guidelines and recommendations during an outbreak by public health and health professionals around the world. This paper calls for 1) evidence-based public health recommendations; 2) considerations when providing public health recommendations in the absence of evidence; 3) evidence and knowledge transparency on current public health recommendations; 4) global alignment on public health recommendations; and 5) further research to strengthen public health recommendations.

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)0.081
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.354
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 score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.431

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0810.354
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.008
Bibliometrics0.0150.014
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.405
GPT teacher head0.525
Teacher spread0.120 · 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

Citations11
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch SquareSame topicInfection Control and VentilationFrench-language works237,207