The Lancet· 2020· Review
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
- 4,089citations
- 2020year
Short summary
Physical distancing of 1 meter or more, face masks, and eye protection are associated with significantly reduced SARS-CoV-2 transmission, according to a systematic review and meta-analysis of 21 sources.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Key points
- Physical distancing of 1 meter or more reduced SARS-CoV-2 transmission risk by 77% (low certainty evidence).
- Face masks were associated with a 67% reduction in transmission risk (low certainty evidence).
- Eye protection was associated with a 10.6% reduction in transmission risk (low certainty evidence).
- Findings support current public health recommendations for physical distancing, masks, and eye protection.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Abstract
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: =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.
The authors' abstract, as published at the source. The Lancet, 2020 · DOI ↗
Continue with a free account
Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.
Continue free on the webSign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.
On your phone:
Field: Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine
Pulmonary and Respiratory MedicineMedicine