PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Hanna M. Ollila AU - Markku Partinen AU - Jukka Koskela AU - Riikka Savolainen AU - Anna Rotkirch AU - Liisa T. Laine TI - Face masks prevent transmission of respiratory diseases: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials<sup>*</sup> AID - 10.1101/2020.07.31.20166116 DP - 2020 Jan 01 TA - medRxiv PG - 2020.07.31.20166116 4099 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/08/04/2020.07.31.20166116.short 4100 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/08/04/2020.07.31.20166116.full AB - Background Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is caused by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and spreads through droplet-mediated transmission on contaminated surfaces and in air. Mounting scientific evidence from observational studies suggests that face masks for the general public may reduce the spread of infections. However, results from randomized control trials (RCT) have been presented as inconclusive, and concerns related to the safety and efficacy of non-surgical face masks in non-clinical settings remain. This controversy calls for a meta-analysis which considers non-compliance in RCTs, the time-lag in benefits of universal masking, and possible adverse effects.Methods We performed a meta-analysis of RCTs of non-surgical face masks in preventing viral respiratory infections in non-hospital and non-household settings at cumulative and maximum follow-up as primary endpoints. The search for RCTs yielded five studies published before May 29th, 2020. We pooled estimates from the studies and performed random-effects meta-analysis and mixed-effects meta-regression across studies, accounting for covariates in compliance vs. non-compliance in treatment.Results Face masks decreased infections across all studies at maximum follow-up (p = 0.0318, RR = 0.608 [0.387 − 0.956]), and particularly in studies without non-compliance bias. We found significant between-study heterogeneity in studies with bias (I2 = 71.2%, P = 0.0077). We also used adjusted meta-regression to account for heterogeneity. The results support a significant protective effect of masking (p = 0.0006, β = 0.0214, SE = 0.0062). No severe adverse effects were detected.Interpretation The meta-analysis of existing randomized control studies found support for the efficacy of face masks among the general public. Our results show that face masks protect populations from infections and do not pose a significant risk to users. Recommendations and clear communication concerning the benefits of face masks should be provided to limit the number of COVID-19 and other respiratory infections.Funding National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number P30AG043073.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementLiisa T Laine has received funding from the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number P30AG043073.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:All relevant ethical guidelines have been followed. The study is a meta-analysis of previous results and no additional IRB approval has been sought, or needed, for analysis.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesThe authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article, and the references 14, 16-19.