Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses

Tom Jefferson, Chris Del Mar, Liz Dooley, Eliana Ferroni, Lubna A. Al-Ansary, Ghada A. Bawazeer, Mieke L. van Driel, Sreekumaran Nair, Ruth Foxlee, Alessandro Rivetti

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articleResearchpeer-review

50 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Viral epidemics or pandemics of acute respiratory infections like influenza or severe acute respiratory syndrome pose a world-wide threat. Antiviral drugs and vaccinations may be insufficient to prevent catastrophe. OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the effectiveness of physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2009, issue 2); MEDLINE (1966 to May 2009); OLDMEDLINE (1950 to 1965); EMBASE (1990 to May 2009); and CINAHL (1982 to May 2009). SELECTION CRITERIA: We scanned 2958 titles, excluded 2790 and retrieved the full papers of 168 trials, to include 59 papers of 60 studies. We included any physical interventions (isolation, quarantine, social distancing, barriers, personal protection and hygiene) to prevent transmission of respiratory viruses. We included the following study designs: randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cohorts, case controls, cross-over, before-after, and time series studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used a standardised form to assess trial eligibility. RCTs were assessed by: randomisation method; allocation generation; concealment; blinding; and follow up. Non-RCTs were assessed for the presence of potential confounders, and classified into low, medium, and high risks of bias. MAIN RESULTS: The risk of bias for the four RCTs, and most cluster RCTs, was high. The observational studies were of mixed quality. Only case-control data were sufficiently homogeneous to allow meta-analysis.The highest quality cluster RCTs suggest respiratory virus spread can be prevented by hygienic measures, such as handwashing, especially around younger children. Additional benefit from reduced transmission from children to other household members is broadly supported in results of other study designs, where the potential for confounding is greater. Six case-control studies suggested that implementing barriers to transmission, isolation, and hygienic measures are effective at containing respiratory virus epidemics. We found limited evidence that N95 respirators were superior to simple surgical masks, but were more expensive, uncomfortable, and caused skin irritation. The incremental effect of adding virucidals or antiseptics to normal handwashing to decrease respiratory disease remains uncertain. Global measures, such as screening at entry ports, were not properly evaluated. There was limited evidence that social distancing was effective especially if related to the risk of exposure. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Many simple and probably low-cost interventions would be useful for reducing the transmission of epidemic respiratory viruses. Routine long-term implementation of some of the measures assessed might be difficult without the threat of a looming epidemic.

Original languageEnglish
JournalCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2010

Fingerprint

Randomized Controlled Trials
Viruses
Hand Disinfection
Quarantine
Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome
Social Isolation
Local Anti-Infective Agents
Pandemics
Mechanical Ventilators
Masks
Random Allocation
Hygiene
MEDLINE
Respiratory Tract Infections
Human Influenza
Libraries
Observational Studies
Antiviral Agents
Meta-Analysis
Case-Control Studies

Cite this

Jefferson, Tom ; Del Mar, Chris ; Dooley, Liz ; Ferroni, Eliana ; Al-Ansary, Lubna A. ; Bawazeer, Ghada A. ; van Driel, Mieke L. ; Nair, Sreekumaran ; Foxlee, Ruth ; Rivetti, Alessandro. / Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses. In: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2010 ; No. 1.
@article{085b9bc954ba49afab29b80748e63e71,
title = "Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: Viral epidemics or pandemics of acute respiratory infections like influenza or severe acute respiratory syndrome pose a world-wide threat. Antiviral drugs and vaccinations may be insufficient to prevent catastrophe. OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the effectiveness of physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2009, issue 2); MEDLINE (1966 to May 2009); OLDMEDLINE (1950 to 1965); EMBASE (1990 to May 2009); and CINAHL (1982 to May 2009). SELECTION CRITERIA: We scanned 2958 titles, excluded 2790 and retrieved the full papers of 168 trials, to include 59 papers of 60 studies. We included any physical interventions (isolation, quarantine, social distancing, barriers, personal protection and hygiene) to prevent transmission of respiratory viruses. We included the following study designs: randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cohorts, case controls, cross-over, before-after, and time series studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used a standardised form to assess trial eligibility. RCTs were assessed by: randomisation method; allocation generation; concealment; blinding; and follow up. Non-RCTs were assessed for the presence of potential confounders, and classified into low, medium, and high risks of bias. MAIN RESULTS: The risk of bias for the four RCTs, and most cluster RCTs, was high. The observational studies were of mixed quality. Only case-control data were sufficiently homogeneous to allow meta-analysis.The highest quality cluster RCTs suggest respiratory virus spread can be prevented by hygienic measures, such as handwashing, especially around younger children. Additional benefit from reduced transmission from children to other household members is broadly supported in results of other study designs, where the potential for confounding is greater. Six case-control studies suggested that implementing barriers to transmission, isolation, and hygienic measures are effective at containing respiratory virus epidemics. We found limited evidence that N95 respirators were superior to simple surgical masks, but were more expensive, uncomfortable, and caused skin irritation. The incremental effect of adding virucidals or antiseptics to normal handwashing to decrease respiratory disease remains uncertain. Global measures, such as screening at entry ports, were not properly evaluated. There was limited evidence that social distancing was effective especially if related to the risk of exposure. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Many simple and probably low-cost interventions would be useful for reducing the transmission of epidemic respiratory viruses. Routine long-term implementation of some of the measures assessed might be difficult without the threat of a looming epidemic.",
author = "Tom Jefferson and {Del Mar}, Chris and Liz Dooley and Eliana Ferroni and Al-Ansary, {Lubna A.} and Bawazeer, {Ghada A.} and {van Driel}, {Mieke L.} and Sreekumaran Nair and Ruth Foxlee and Alessandro Rivetti",
year = "2010",
doi = "10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub3",
language = "English",
journal = "Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online)",
issn = "1469-493X",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "1",

}

Jefferson, T, Del Mar, C, Dooley, L, Ferroni, E, Al-Ansary, LA, Bawazeer, GA, van Driel, ML, Nair, S, Foxlee, R & Rivetti, A 2010, 'Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses' Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, no. 1. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub3

Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses. / Jefferson, Tom; Del Mar, Chris; Dooley, Liz; Ferroni, Eliana; Al-Ansary, Lubna A.; Bawazeer, Ghada A.; van Driel, Mieke L.; Nair, Sreekumaran; Foxlee, Ruth; Rivetti, Alessandro.

In: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, No. 1, 2010.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses

AU - Jefferson, Tom

AU - Del Mar, Chris

AU - Dooley, Liz

AU - Ferroni, Eliana

AU - Al-Ansary, Lubna A.

AU - Bawazeer, Ghada A.

AU - van Driel, Mieke L.

AU - Nair, Sreekumaran

AU - Foxlee, Ruth

AU - Rivetti, Alessandro

PY - 2010

Y1 - 2010

N2 - BACKGROUND: Viral epidemics or pandemics of acute respiratory infections like influenza or severe acute respiratory syndrome pose a world-wide threat. Antiviral drugs and vaccinations may be insufficient to prevent catastrophe. OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the effectiveness of physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2009, issue 2); MEDLINE (1966 to May 2009); OLDMEDLINE (1950 to 1965); EMBASE (1990 to May 2009); and CINAHL (1982 to May 2009). SELECTION CRITERIA: We scanned 2958 titles, excluded 2790 and retrieved the full papers of 168 trials, to include 59 papers of 60 studies. We included any physical interventions (isolation, quarantine, social distancing, barriers, personal protection and hygiene) to prevent transmission of respiratory viruses. We included the following study designs: randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cohorts, case controls, cross-over, before-after, and time series studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used a standardised form to assess trial eligibility. RCTs were assessed by: randomisation method; allocation generation; concealment; blinding; and follow up. Non-RCTs were assessed for the presence of potential confounders, and classified into low, medium, and high risks of bias. MAIN RESULTS: The risk of bias for the four RCTs, and most cluster RCTs, was high. The observational studies were of mixed quality. Only case-control data were sufficiently homogeneous to allow meta-analysis.The highest quality cluster RCTs suggest respiratory virus spread can be prevented by hygienic measures, such as handwashing, especially around younger children. Additional benefit from reduced transmission from children to other household members is broadly supported in results of other study designs, where the potential for confounding is greater. Six case-control studies suggested that implementing barriers to transmission, isolation, and hygienic measures are effective at containing respiratory virus epidemics. We found limited evidence that N95 respirators were superior to simple surgical masks, but were more expensive, uncomfortable, and caused skin irritation. The incremental effect of adding virucidals or antiseptics to normal handwashing to decrease respiratory disease remains uncertain. Global measures, such as screening at entry ports, were not properly evaluated. There was limited evidence that social distancing was effective especially if related to the risk of exposure. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Many simple and probably low-cost interventions would be useful for reducing the transmission of epidemic respiratory viruses. Routine long-term implementation of some of the measures assessed might be difficult without the threat of a looming epidemic.

AB - BACKGROUND: Viral epidemics or pandemics of acute respiratory infections like influenza or severe acute respiratory syndrome pose a world-wide threat. Antiviral drugs and vaccinations may be insufficient to prevent catastrophe. OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the effectiveness of physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2009, issue 2); MEDLINE (1966 to May 2009); OLDMEDLINE (1950 to 1965); EMBASE (1990 to May 2009); and CINAHL (1982 to May 2009). SELECTION CRITERIA: We scanned 2958 titles, excluded 2790 and retrieved the full papers of 168 trials, to include 59 papers of 60 studies. We included any physical interventions (isolation, quarantine, social distancing, barriers, personal protection and hygiene) to prevent transmission of respiratory viruses. We included the following study designs: randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cohorts, case controls, cross-over, before-after, and time series studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used a standardised form to assess trial eligibility. RCTs were assessed by: randomisation method; allocation generation; concealment; blinding; and follow up. Non-RCTs were assessed for the presence of potential confounders, and classified into low, medium, and high risks of bias. MAIN RESULTS: The risk of bias for the four RCTs, and most cluster RCTs, was high. The observational studies were of mixed quality. Only case-control data were sufficiently homogeneous to allow meta-analysis.The highest quality cluster RCTs suggest respiratory virus spread can be prevented by hygienic measures, such as handwashing, especially around younger children. Additional benefit from reduced transmission from children to other household members is broadly supported in results of other study designs, where the potential for confounding is greater. Six case-control studies suggested that implementing barriers to transmission, isolation, and hygienic measures are effective at containing respiratory virus epidemics. We found limited evidence that N95 respirators were superior to simple surgical masks, but were more expensive, uncomfortable, and caused skin irritation. The incremental effect of adding virucidals or antiseptics to normal handwashing to decrease respiratory disease remains uncertain. Global measures, such as screening at entry ports, were not properly evaluated. There was limited evidence that social distancing was effective especially if related to the risk of exposure. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Many simple and probably low-cost interventions would be useful for reducing the transmission of epidemic respiratory viruses. Routine long-term implementation of some of the measures assessed might be difficult without the threat of a looming epidemic.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77950885046&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub3

DO - 10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub3

M3 - Review article

JO - Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online)

JF - Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online)

SN - 1469-493X

IS - 1

ER -