Front lines of the COVID-19 pandemic: what is the effectiveness of using personal protective equipment in health service environments?—a systematic review

PURPOSE: This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) in closed environments, similar to waiting or exam rooms of healthcare facilities, in the face of exposure to a bioaerosol. METHODS: Combinations of words were selected for six electronic databases and for the gray literature. To consider the eligibility of the studies to be included/excluded, the acronym “PECOS” was used: humans and/or experimental models that simulate aerosol (Population); aerosol exposure and the use of masks/respirators (exposition/intervention); controlled or not controlled (comparison); effectiveness of PPE and the receiver exposure (outcomes); and randomized clinical studies or not, observational or laboratory simulation studies (Studies design). RESULTS: A total of 4820 references were retrieved by the search strategy. Thirty-five articles were selected for complete reading, of which 13 articles were included for qualitative synthesis. A surgical mask or N95 respirator reduced the risk of transmission, even over short distances. The use of masks, even those with less filtering power, when used by all individuals in the same environment is more effective in reducing risk than the use of respirators with high filtering power for only some of the individuals present. CONCLUSION: The use of mask in closed environments is effective in reducing the risk of transmission and contagion of a contaminated bioaerosol, with greater effectiveness when these devices are used by the source and receiver, regardless of the equipment’s filtering power. (PROSPERO 2020 CRD 42020183759). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00420-021-01775-y.