![\"Nombre](\"https:\/\/www.kevenarseneault.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/03\/Nombre-de-cas-de-lArkansas-et-lOklahoma-avec-le-port-du-masque.jpeg\")
<\/p>\n
2- 2 pays dans le monde : l’un oblige le masque (Royaume-Uni) et l’autre non (Su\u00e8de)<\/strong><\/p>\n R\u00e9f\u00e9rences : – Cowling, B. et al. (2010) : https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/journals\/epidemiology-and-infection\/article\/face-masks-to-prevent-transmission-of-influenza-virus-a-systematic-review\/64D368496EBDE0AFCC6639CCC9D8BC05<\/a> – bin-Reza et al. (2012) : https:\/\/onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/doi\/epdf\/10.1111\/j.1750-2659.2011.00307.x?fbclid=IwAR1Q4oI0OyfvkVI46Uct8qPDa4HjALH4SusQM-fr_34_ITU79sE2O9S-cII<\/a> – Smith, J.D. et al. (2016) : https:\/\/www.cmaj.ca\/content\/188\/8\/567<\/a> – Offeddu, V. et al. (2017) : https:\/\/academic.oup.com\/cid\/article\/65\/11\/1934\/4068747<\/a> – Radonovich, L.J. et al. (2019) : https:\/\/jamanetwork.com\/journals\/jama\/fullarticle\/2749214<\/a> – Long, Y. et al. (2020) : https:\/\/onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/doi\/epdf\/10.1111\/jebm.12381<\/a>![\"Su\u00e8de](\"https:\/\/www.kevenarseneault.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/03\/Su\u00e8de-sans-masque-et-Angleterre-avec-masque.jpeg\")
<\/p>\n
\n– Jacobs, J. L. et al. (2009) : https:\/\/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/pubmed\/19216002<\/a>
\n\u00ab\u00a0N95-masked health-care workers (HCW) were significantly more likely to experience headaches. Face mask use in HCW was not demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds\u00a0\u00bb.<\/p>\n
\n\u00ab\u00a0None of the studies reviewed showed a benefit from wearing a mask, in either HCW or community members in households (H).\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n
\n\u00ab\u00a0There were 17 eligible studies. … None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask \u2044 respirator use and protection against influenza infection.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n
\n\u201cWe identified 6 clinical studies … In the meta-analysis of the clinical studies, we found no significant difference between N95 respirators and surgical masks in associated risk of (a) laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection, (b) influenza-like illness, or (c) reported work-place absenteeism.\u201d<\/p>\n
\n\u201cSelf-reported assessment of clinical outcomes was prone to bias. Evidence of a protective effect of masks or respirators against verified respiratory infection (VRI) was not statistically significant\u201d<\/p>\n
\n\u201cAmong 2862 randomized participants, 2371 completed the study and accounted for 5180 HCW-seasons. … Among outpatient health care personnel, N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza.\u201d<\/p>\n
\n\u201cA total of six RCTs involving 9 171 participants were included. There were no statistically significant differences in preventing laboratory-confirmed influenza, laboratory-confirmed respiratory viral infections, laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection and influenza-like illness using N95 respirators and surgical masks. Meta-analysis indicated a protective effect of N95 respirators against laboratory-confirmed bacterial colonization (RR = 0.58, 95% CI 0.43-0.78). The use of N95 respirators compared with surgical masks is not associated with a lower risk of laboratory-confirmed influenza.\u201d<\/p>\n