Your browser doesn't support javascript.
The effect of eye protection on SARS-CoV-2 transmission: a systematic review.
Byambasuren, Oyungerel; Beller, Elaine; Clark, Justin; Collignon, Peter; Glasziou, Paul.
  • Byambasuren O; Institute for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Bond University, 14 University Dr, Robina, QLD, 4226, Australia. obyambas@bond.edu.au.
  • Beller E; Institute for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Bond University, 14 University Dr, Robina, QLD, 4226, Australia.
  • Clark J; Institute for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Bond University, 14 University Dr, Robina, QLD, 4226, Australia.
  • Collignon P; Medical School, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
  • Glasziou P; Institute for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Bond University, 14 University Dr, Robina, QLD, 4226, Australia.
Antimicrob Resist Infect Control ; 10(1): 156, 2021 11 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1503693
Preprint
This scientific journal article is probably based on a previously available preprint. It has been identified through a machine matching algorithm, human confirmation is still pending.
See preprint
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

The effect of eye protection to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection in the real-world remains uncertain. We aimed to synthesize all available research on the potential impact of eye protection on transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

METHODS:

We searched PROSPERO, PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library for clinical trials and comparative observational studies in CENTRAL, and Europe PMC for pre-prints. We included studies that reported sufficient data to estimate the effect of any form of eye protection including face shields and variants, goggles, and glasses, on subsequent confirmed infection with SARS-CoV-2.

RESULTS:

We screened 898 articles and included 6 reports of 5 observational studies from 4 countries (USA, India, Columbia, and United Kingdom) that tested face shields, goggles, and wraparound eyewear on 7567 healthcare workers. The three before-and-after and one retrospective cohort studies showed statistically significant and substantial reductions in SARS-CoV-2 infections favouring eye protection with odds ratios ranging from 0.04 to 0.6, corresponding to relative risk reductions of 96% to 40%. These reductions were not explained by changes in the community rates. However, the one case-control study reported odds ratio favouring no eye protection (OR 1.7, 95% CI 0.99, 3.0). The high heterogeneity between studies precluded any meaningful meta-analysis. None of the studies adjusted for potential confounders such as other protective behaviours, thus increasing the risk of bias, and decreasing the certainty of evidence to very low.

CONCLUSIONS:

Current studies suggest that eye protection may play a role in prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection in healthcare workers. However, robust comparative trials are needed to clearly determine effectiveness of eye protections and wearability issues in both healthcare and general populations.
Subject(s)
Keywords

Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Infectious Disease Transmission, Professional-to-Patient / Eye Protective Devices / Pandemics / COVID-19 Type of study: Cohort study / Experimental Studies / Observational study / Prognostic study / Reviews / Systematic review/Meta Analysis Topics: Variants Limits: Humans Language: English Journal: Antimicrob Resist Infect Control Year: 2021 Document Type: Article Affiliation country: S13756-021-01025-3

Similar

MEDLINE

...
LILACS

LIS


Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Infectious Disease Transmission, Professional-to-Patient / Eye Protective Devices / Pandemics / COVID-19 Type of study: Cohort study / Experimental Studies / Observational study / Prognostic study / Reviews / Systematic review/Meta Analysis Topics: Variants Limits: Humans Language: English Journal: Antimicrob Resist Infect Control Year: 2021 Document Type: Article Affiliation country: S13756-021-01025-3