Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • COVID-19
    • Articles & podcasts
    • Blog posts
    • Collection
    • News
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
    • Career Ad Discount
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2021
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • COVID-19
    • Articles & podcasts
    • Blog posts
    • Collection
    • News
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
    • Career Ad Discount
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2021
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Research

Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Jeffrey D. Smith, Colin C. MacDougall, Jennie Johnstone, Ray A. Copes, Brian Schwartz and Gary E. Garber
CMAJ May 17, 2016 188 (8) 567-574; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.150835
Jeffrey D. Smith
Public Health Ontario (Smith, MacDougall, Johnstone, Copes, Schwartz, Garber); Department of Medicine (Johnstone), University of Toronto; Dalla Lana School of Public Health (Copes, Schwartz), University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.; Department of Medicine (Garber), University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ont.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Colin C. MacDougall
Public Health Ontario (Smith, MacDougall, Johnstone, Copes, Schwartz, Garber); Department of Medicine (Johnstone), University of Toronto; Dalla Lana School of Public Health (Copes, Schwartz), University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.; Department of Medicine (Garber), University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ont.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jennie Johnstone
Public Health Ontario (Smith, MacDougall, Johnstone, Copes, Schwartz, Garber); Department of Medicine (Johnstone), University of Toronto; Dalla Lana School of Public Health (Copes, Schwartz), University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.; Department of Medicine (Garber), University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ont.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ray A. Copes
Public Health Ontario (Smith, MacDougall, Johnstone, Copes, Schwartz, Garber); Department of Medicine (Johnstone), University of Toronto; Dalla Lana School of Public Health (Copes, Schwartz), University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.; Department of Medicine (Garber), University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ont.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Brian Schwartz
Public Health Ontario (Smith, MacDougall, Johnstone, Copes, Schwartz, Garber); Department of Medicine (Johnstone), University of Toronto; Dalla Lana School of Public Health (Copes, Schwartz), University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.; Department of Medicine (Garber), University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ont.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Gary E. Garber
Public Health Ontario (Smith, MacDougall, Johnstone, Copes, Schwartz, Garber); Department of Medicine (Johnstone), University of Toronto; Dalla Lana School of Public Health (Copes, Schwartz), University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.; Department of Medicine (Garber), University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ont.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: gary.garber@oahpp.ca
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Related Content
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading
Submit a Response to This Article
Compose Response

More information about text formats

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
References
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'. Minimum 7 characters.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'. Minimum 12 characters.
Your organization, institution's or residential address.
Statement of Competing Interests

Vertical Tabs

Jump to comment:

  • The case of influenza
    Raymond Tellier
    Posted on: 04 July 2016
  • N95 versus surgical masks
    Sergey A Grinshpun
    Posted on: 21 April 2016
  • Re:Failure to understand worker protection
    Gabor Lantos
    Posted on: 06 April 2016
  • Failure to understand worker protection
    Linda Haslam-Stroud
    Posted on: 22 March 2016
  • NIOSH re surgical masks
    Gabor Lantos
    Posted on: 10 March 2016
  • Posted on: (4 July 2016)
    The case of influenza
    • Raymond Tellier, Associate Professor

    I read with interest the article of Smith et al. Regarding Influenza, I must note the following:

    1) In their meta analysis of N-95 respirators vs surgical masks, Smith et al place a heavy reliance on the study of Loeb et al [1] . A careful reading of Loeb et al shows that 42 % of their infected subjects (10% of studied nurses) were infected with A(H1N1) pdm09 and had been infected prior to approximately May 1, 2...

    Show More

    I read with interest the article of Smith et al. Regarding Influenza, I must note the following:

    1) In their meta analysis of N-95 respirators vs surgical masks, Smith et al place a heavy reliance on the study of Loeb et al [1] . A careful reading of Loeb et al shows that 42 % of their infected subjects (10% of studied nurses) were infected with A(H1N1) pdm09 and had been infected prior to approximately May 1, 2009 . All these infections were diagnosed by serology only, none were PCR positive. By comparison, a study of the first wave of the 2009 pandemic in Ontario, published in 2009 by the Ontario Agency for Health Protection and Promotion [2] documents that by May 1, 2009 there had been a little less than a hundred laboratory confirmed cases (by PCR) of A(H1N1) pdm 09 in the whole province, half of which having been acquired abroad, and that the first wave was just beginning to ramp up. The discrepancy would suggest a considerably accelerated transmission within hospitals early in the pandemic; however it is remarkable that none of the cases reported by Loeb et al were confirmed by PCR. It is now documented that the hemagglutination inhibition serology for A(H1N1) pdm09 shows considerable cross reactivity with the previous seasonal A(H1N1) (and possibly with other strains of influenza) [3] and so these instances of seroconversions could have been conceivably caused by infections acquired earlier in the community with the seasonal A(H1N1), or even by vaccination. This suggests that the data from Loeb et al should be re-analyzed without these cases; of course the remaining seroconversions to seasonal influenza might well have been acquired in the community rather than at the hospital, leaving us with little firm support for the contention that surgical masks are non inferior to N95 respirators.

    2) Smith et al misrepresent the study of Milton et al [4] when they state that infected humans " ... rarely produce aerosols that contain infectious viral particles". Numerous studies have detected by PCR aerosolized influenza viruses produced by infected humans. It is well known that isolation of influenza viruses in cell culture is considerably less sensitive than detection by PCR; furthermore, recovery of aerosol particles using collectors adversely affects the infectivity of viruses [5]. Thus, detection by culture of infectious influenza virus in aerosols in any amount is bound to be a significant underestimate, as well as a cause for serious concern. I note that several other studies have also reported the detection of infectious influenza viruses by culture in aerosols produced by infected patients, e.g. [6-8].

    References

    [1] Loeb M, Dafoe N, Mahony J, John M, Sarabia A, Glavin V, et al. Surgical mask vs N95 respirator for preventing influenza among health care workers: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2009;302(17):1865-71.

    [2] Ontario Agency for Health Protection and Promotion. Epidemiological summary of pandemic influenza A(H1N1) 2009 virus - Ontario, Canada, June 2009. Wkly Epidemiol Rec. 2009;84(47):485-91.

    [3] Freeman G, Perera RAPM, Ngan E, Fang VJ, S C, Ip DKM, et al. Quantifying homologous and heterologous antibody titre rises after influenza virus infection. Epidemiology and Infection. 2016:doi.org/10.1017/S0950268816000583.

    [4] Milton DK, Fabian MP, Cowling BJ, Grantham ML, McDevitt JJ. Influenza virus aerosols in human exhaled breath: particle size, culturability, and effect of surgical masks. PLoS Pathog. 2013;9:e1003205.

    [5] Tseng C-C, Li C-S. Collection efficiency of aerosol samplers for virus-containing aerosols. J Aerosol Sci. 2005;36:593-607.

    [6] Lindsley WG, Blachere FM, Thewlis RE, Vishnu A, Davis KA, Cao G, et al. Measurements of airborne influenza virus in aerosol particles from human cough. PLoS One. 2010;5(11):e15100.

    [7] Lednicky JA, Loeb JC. Detection and isolation of airborne influenza A H3N2 virus using a Sioutas personal cascade impactor sampler. Influenza Res Treat. 2013:doi: 10.1155/2013/656825.

    [8] Lindsley WG, Blachere FM, Beezhold DH, Thewlis RE, Noorbakhsh B, Othumpangat S, et al. Viable influenza A virus in airborne particles expelled during coughs vs exhalations. Influenza Other Respir Viruses. 2016:doi:10.1111/irv.12390.

    Conflict of Interest:

    None declared

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
  • Posted on: (21 April 2016)
    N95 versus surgical masks
    • Sergey A Grinshpun, university professor

    Given the wealth of published data on the efficiency of N95 FFRs and surgical masks resulting from various extensive experimental studies, it is surprising to learn that the investigators of this paper found no evidence that N95 respirators offer better protection compared to surgical masks. Our testing conducted with health care workers showed a clear difference. I would echo Dr. Lantos' comment "the absence of proof i...

    Show More

    Given the wealth of published data on the efficiency of N95 FFRs and surgical masks resulting from various extensive experimental studies, it is surprising to learn that the investigators of this paper found no evidence that N95 respirators offer better protection compared to surgical masks. Our testing conducted with health care workers showed a clear difference. I would echo Dr. Lantos' comment "the absence of proof is not the proof of absence." Of course, more has to be done to improve the N95 FFRs, especially though improving the faceseal, but the health care community should be aware of a very low (if any) efficiency of surgical masks against aerosol particles while N95 have demonstrated significantly higher protection.

    Conflict of Interest:

    None declared

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
  • Posted on: (6 April 2016)
    Re:Failure to understand worker protection
    • Gabor Lantos, Occupational physician

    Further to Ms. Haslam-Stroud's comments, Justice Campbell also emphasized the Precautionary Principle which is still, 13 years later, all too much lacking; as most recently evidenced by the inadequate protection of nurses against Ebola in the USA. Both the SARS Commission and the later CSA Z94.4-11 standard clearly indicate the need for a Respiratory Safety Officer, which most hospitals still do not have, and the standard...

    Show More

    Further to Ms. Haslam-Stroud's comments, Justice Campbell also emphasized the Precautionary Principle which is still, 13 years later, all too much lacking; as most recently evidenced by the inadequate protection of nurses against Ebola in the USA. Both the SARS Commission and the later CSA Z94.4-11 standard clearly indicate the need for a Respiratory Safety Officer, which most hospitals still do not have, and the standard also utilizes "control banding", which if followed, would immediately exclude the use of surgical masks in infectious clinical settings. Both the premise and the conclusions of the meta-analysis are not in keeping with the Precautionary Principle. The meta-analysis reviewed the wrong studies; poorly conducted clinical studies instead of peer-reviewed scientific ones in areas such as occupational hygiene, biosafety, aerosol physics, and respiratory protection.

    Conflict of Interest:

    None declared

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
  • Posted on: (22 March 2016)
    Failure to understand worker protection
    • Linda Haslam-Stroud, President

    In the SARS Commission report, "Spring of Fear," Justice Archie Campbell wrote, "There were two solitudes: infection control and worker safety....infection control failed to protect nurses..."

    To the detriment of health-care workers and their patients across Ontario, this divide between the two solitudes has been permitted to persist.

    The opening sentence in this CMAJ paper's abstract reveals infectio...

    Show More

    In the SARS Commission report, "Spring of Fear," Justice Archie Campbell wrote, "There were two solitudes: infection control and worker safety....infection control failed to protect nurses..."

    To the detriment of health-care workers and their patients across Ontario, this divide between the two solitudes has been permitted to persist.

    The opening sentence in this CMAJ paper's abstract reveals infection control's continuing failure to understand fundamental worker protection. It talks about determining what "...facial protection should be used by health-care workers to prevent transmission of acute respiratory infection." Then it goes on to explain the research into the comparative protective abilities between an approved N95 respirator and a surgical mask, which isn't recognized anywhere in science-based standards as a form of respiratory protection.

    If the researchers wanted to look at facial protection they should have examined visors, goggles and hoods, etc., not an N95, which while worn on the face, and which may provide a limited physical barrier, is not designed as facial protection.

    On the other hand, if respiratory protection is the question, then yes, the N95, widely used in health-care, is an appropriate starting point. It is the lowest, scientifically and legally acceptable form of personal equipment for protecting workers from inhaling harmful particles. But why compare them to surgical masks? While also worn on the face, surgical masks were never designed, tested or approved to protect the wearer. Their function is to prevent the wearer from expelling contaminants, e.g. onto a patient or a sterile field.

    The conclusion, as confounding to me as the faulty starting point of this research, is that the lowest form of respirator, the N95, doesn't appear to work in health-care settings. If valid, that means we need to determine why not and focus on solutions like fit-testing, education, training and even developing an ergonomic design better suited to health care. It cannot mean we take away real respirators from health-care workers.

    Despite this, the authors seem to want to waste more time on building randomized control trials to compare respiratory protective capability between the N95, a respirator they say doesn't work, and the surgical mask, something that isn't even a respirator. One really has to ask what ethics board would ever approve sending a control group of healthy workers into a room contaminated with airborne disease wearing surgical masks, which are not actual respirators. Furthermore, what would be the point?

    A true respiratory protection program, as outlined in Canadian Standards Association standard Z94.4-11, should be a key component of a comprehensive infection control program that controls risk to health-care workers and their patients. In accordance with the hierarchy of controls, personal protective equipment (PPE) like a respirator is the last line of defence against a hazard, and the responsible action when you've proven PPE doesn't do the job is to find out why and correct it, not remove the last thing standing between a worker and harm.

    If a particular gown allows fluid penetration when dealing with bodily fluids, do you take it off and abandon protection altogether? Or do you look for something that will better protect the worker? When facing the risk of exposure to an inhalable contaminant, there is no legal or ethical foundation for reverting to absolutely no respiratory protection, which is what a surgical mask represents.

    I frankly do not agree that anyone has proven N95s can't work in health care. With proper training, reinforcement, staffing and other support (all components of a legally required respiratory protection program, none of which were controlled for in the cited studies) N95s have a proven track record. In limited situations they can be very effective in protecting respiratory tracts of wearers, as evinced in their use in British Columbia where SARS was stopped in its tracks, and in tuberculosis treatment around the world.

    No one knows better than front-line nurses that the N95 is not a perfect fit for health-care settings and can be very uncomfortable to use. But nurses and other health-care workers deserve to be protected. As we face a future laden with all kinds of potential threats from natural emerging diseases and bioterrorism, wouldn't our limited time and resources be better spent focusing our research and response efforts on developing respirators that will better protect health care workers?

    Linda Haslam-Stroud, RN, President, Ontario Nurses' Association

    Conflict of Interest:

    None declared

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
  • Posted on: (10 March 2016)
    NIOSH re surgical masks
    • Gabor Lantos, P.Eng, MD

    The absence of proof is not the proof of absence. There is much evidence in the aerosol physics and bioaerosol literature re airborne spread from coughs and sneezes. There is a good reason why NIOSH has never approved surgical masks as PPE.

    Conflict of Interest:

    None declared

    Competing Interests: None declared.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 188 (8)
CMAJ
Vol. 188, Issue 8
17 May 2016
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Jeffrey D. Smith, Colin C. MacDougall, Jennie Johnstone, Ray A. Copes, Brian Schwartz, Gary E. Garber
CMAJ May 2016, 188 (8) 567-574; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.150835

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Jeffrey D. Smith, Colin C. MacDougall, Jennie Johnstone, Ray A. Copes, Brian Schwartz, Gary E. Garber
CMAJ May 2016, 188 (8) 567-574; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.150835
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Interpretation
    • Acknowledgement
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Tables
  • Related Content
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • Highlights
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Use of Powered Air-Purifying Respirator(PAPR) by healthcare workers for preventing highly infectious viral diseases -a systematic review of evidence
  • Critical levels of mask efficiency and of mask adoption that theoretically extinguish respiratory virus epidemics
  • MACHINE LEARNING PREDICTION FOR COVID 19 PANDEMIC IN INDIA
  • Triaging of Respiratory Protective Equipment on the assumed risk of SARS-CoV-2 aerosol exposure in patient-facing healthcare workers delivering secondary care: a rapid review
  • Efficacy of face mask in preventing respiratory virus transmission: a systematic review and meta-analysis
  • Perspectives sur lequipement de protection individuelle dans les etablissements de soins actifs durant la pandemie de COVID-19
  • Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses. Part 1 - Face masks, eye protection and person distancing: systematic review and meta-analysis
  • Face masks to prevent transmission of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis
  • Triaging of respiratory protective equipment on the assumed risk of SARS-CoV-2 aerosol exposure in patient-facing healthcare workers delivering secondary care: a rapid review
  • Perspectives on personal protective equipment in acute care facilities during the COVID-19 pandemic
  • Masks for prevention of viral respiratory infections among health care workers and the public: PEER umbrella systematic review
  • What mask should I wear to protect against transmissible acute respiratory infections?
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Rates of rebleeding, thrombosis and mortality associated with resumption of anticoagulant therapy after anticoagulant-related bleeding
  • Trends in prevalence of chronic disease and multimorbidity in Ontario, Canada
  • COVID-19 in patients undergoing long-term dialysis in Ontario
Show more Research

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Topics
    • Respiratory medicine
    • Occupational health
    • Infectious diseases

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions

Copyright 2021, Joule Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of the resources on this site in an accessible format, please contact us at cmajgroup@cmaj.ca.

Powered by HighWire