Treatment failure · preterm infants receiving nasal CPAP
Mask may leads to lower treatment failure compared with prongs (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
All‐cause mortality · preterm infants receiving nasal CPAP
Mask showed no clear difference in all‐cause mortality compared with prongs (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Neurodevelopmental disability · preterm infants receiving nasal CPAP
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found
Pneumothorax · preterm infants receiving nasal CPAP
Mask showed no clear difference in pneumothorax compared with prongs (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Moderate‐severe nasal injury · preterm infants receiving nasal CPAP
Mask may leads to lower moderate–severe nasal injury compared with prongs (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Bronchopulmonary dysplasia · preterm infants receiving nasal CPAP
It is very uncertain whether mask changes bronchopulmonary dysplasia compared with prongs (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Contamination of mask from hands · healthcare workers
It is very uncertain whether modified personal protective equipment (PPE): mask plus tabs changes contamination of mask from hands compared with standard masks (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
ANB · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
Nanda facemask led to higher ANB compared with conventional facemask; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Viral respiratory illness ‐ influenza/COVID‐like illness · general population
Medical/surgical masks showed no clear difference in viral respiratory illness ‐ influenza/COVID‐like illness compared with no masks (moderate certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Viral respiratory illness ‐ laboratory‐confirmed influenza/SARS‐CoV‐2 · general population
Medical/surgical masks showed no clear difference in viral respiratory illness ‐ laboratory‐confirmed influenza/SARS‐CoV‐2 compared with no masks (moderate certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Adverse events · general population
1 finding from 1 review
ANB · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
Facemask after Alt-RAMEC showed no clear difference in ANB compared with facemask started simultaneously with Alt-RAMEC; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Wits appraisal · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
Facemask after Alt-RAMEC showed no clear difference in wits appraisal compared with facemask started simultaneously with Alt-RAMEC; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Overjet · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
Facemask after Alt-RAMEC showed no clear difference in overjet compared with facemask started simultaneously with Alt-RAMEC; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Wits appraisal · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
Facemask led to higher wits appraisal compared with untreated control (no treatment); GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Overjet · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
Facemask led to higher overjet compared with untreated control (no treatment); GRADE not reported.
3 findings from 1 review
MD 5.04 [4.29, 5.80]
2 studies · 92 participants
GRADE not reported
MD 1.30 [-0.16, 2.76]
1 study · 65 participants
Low
MD 2.50 [1.21, 3.79]
1 study · 63 participants
Moderate
Self-esteem (Piers-Harris self-concept scale) · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
Facemask showed no clear difference in self-esteem (Piers-Harris self-concept scale) compared with untreated control (no treatment); GRADE not reported.
3 findings from 1 review
MD 0.60 [-2.57, 3.77]
1 study · 63 participants
GRADE not reported
MD 1.50 [-0.96, 3.96]
1 study · 69 participants
GRADE not reported
MD -0.30 [-4.17, 3.57]
1 study · 65 participants
GRADE not reported
ANB · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
Facemask probably leads to higher ANB compared with untreated control (no treatment) (moderate certainty).
3 findings from 1 review
MD 1.40 [0.43, 2.37]
1 study · 63 participants
Moderate
MD 0.70 [-0.74, 2.14]
1 study · 65 participants
Low
MD 3.60 [2.68, 4.52]
5 studies · 197 participants
GRADE not reported
Self-esteem (Oral Aesthetic Subjective Impact Score, OASIS) · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
Facemask led to lower self-esteem (Oral Aesthetic Subjective Impact Score, OASIS) compared with untreated control (no treatment); GRADE not reported.
3 findings from 1 review
MD -4.00 [-7.40, -0.60]
1 study · 69 participants
GRADE not reported
MD -2.20 [-7.31, 2.91]
1 study · 65 participants
GRADE not reported
MD -3.40 [-7.99, 1.19]
1 study · 63 participants
GRADE not reported
Adverse effects (temporomandibular joint signs and symptoms) · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
1 finding from 1 review