↓ Skip to main content

Review of economic evaluations of mask and respirator use for protection against respiratory infection transmission

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

1 blog
6 tweeters


13 Dimensions

Readers on

116 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Review of economic evaluations of mask and respirator use for protection against respiratory infection transmission
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12879-015-1167-6
Pubmed ID

Shohini Mukerji, C. Raina MacIntyre, Anthony T. Newall


There has been increasing debate surrounding mask and respirator interventions to control respiratory infection transmission in both healthcare and community settings. As decision makers are considering the recommendations they should evaluate how to provide the most efficient protection strategies with minimum costs. The aim of this review is to identify and evaluate the existing economic evaluation literature in this area and to offer advice on how future evaluations on this topic should be conducted. We searched the Scopus database for all literature on economic evaluation of mask or respirator use to control respiratory infection transmission. Reference lists from the identified studies were also manually searched. Seven studies met our inclusion criteria from the initial 806 studies identified by the search strategy and our manual search. Five studies considered interventions for seasonal and/or pandemic influenza, with one also considering SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome). The other two studies focussed on tuberculosis transmission control interventions. The settings and methodologies of the studies varied greatly. No low-middle income settings were identified. Only one of the reviewed studies cited clinical evidence to inform their mask/respirator intervention effectiveness parameters. Mask and respirator interventions were generally reported by the study authors to be cost saving or cost-effective when compared to no intervention or other control measures, however the evaluations had important limitations. Given the large cost differential between masks and respirators, there is a need for more comprehensive economic evaluations to compare the relative costs and benefits of these interventions in situations and settings where alternative options are potentially applicable. There are at present insufficient well conducted cost-effectiveness studies to inform decision-makers on the value for money of alternative mask/respirator options.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 116 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 112 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 20%
Researcher 20 17%
Student > Bachelor 13 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 6%
Other 7 6%
Other 21 18%
Unknown 25 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 6 5%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 3%
Other 20 17%
Unknown 36 31%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 February 2022.
All research outputs
of 21,769,404 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
of 7,410 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 269,235 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,769,404 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,410 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 269,235 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them