256:
571:
550:
581:
26:
240:
344:
500:
482:
393:
769:
985:
964:
748:
680:
659:
779:
451:
874:
853:
1243:
995:
884:
1239:
1732:
efficacy of masks against COVID comes from observational studies. Due to the paucity of evidence from RCTs, some systematic reviews have included the observational studies along with the RCTs. As of August 2023, RCTs played a relatively small role in the evaluation of non-pharmaceutical interventions during the pandemic
1561:
I think it's worded fine as it is. I'm good with the changes that were not reverted, and the status quo for the rest. If you want to propose more changes, up to you. I'm not clear on which review "made clear it wasn't rigorous"; it seems pretty unlikely that a review would negate itself like that. If
1199:
Overall effectiveness of these interventions was affected by clinical heterogeneity and methodological limitations, such as confounding and measurement bias. It was not possible to evaluate the impact of type of face maks (eg, surgical, fabric, N95 respirators) and compliance and frequency of wearing
2233:
However, within hospitals, severe restrictions due to SARS resulted in delays in treatments for cancer and surgeries, and the continuous, universal use of N95 respirators and other forms of personal protection was stressful for health care workers. Our experience suggests that the spread of SARS-CoV
1525:
to exclude reviews that focus more on RCT evidence on the basis of being sympathetic to other reviews that argue that focusing on RCTs is flawed for whatever reason. As a more general comment, I don't see why compliance is necessarily fatal to RCTs. Whether people comply or not is a very important
1503:
much discussion on a single source, doesn't that indicate it might be a little problematic to include? IMO, better to focus on one source, and mine it to make sure it stands up to scrutiny. Picking poison apples being less likely if you only pick one, even if potentially more of the apple could be
1743:
A 2023 systematic review from the
Cochrane Collaboration said the evidence from randomized controlled trials was still inconclusive over whether masking prevented the spread of influenza/COVID‐like illness through a population, noting that the answer could be different for different viruses. This
1941:
differing views, which is not what we are supposed to do. I'm not sure what specific changes you have in mind this time, but to be clear, consensus so far is clearly against removing the
Cochrane source or mention of RCTs, so it should not be attempted again. We can see if anyone else weighs in.
1731:
There are two types of evidence for the efficacy of masks: observational studies, and randomised controlled trials (RCTs). While RCTs are more robust, they are too impractical for many public health interventions, yielding insufficient statistical power and validity. Most of the evidence for the
2155:
template is not necessary and I will likely remove it soon. This isn't really a mathematics topic except in the sense that every science topic involves math to some extent. As Bon courage stated, preprints are useless (this one is over a year old but apparently never published). If the 2024 ASM
2361:
HCWs were excluded if they (1) were unable or refused to consent; (2) had beards, long moustaches, or long facial hair stubble; (3) had a current respiratory illness, rhinitis, and/or allergy; or (4) worked part-time or did not work in the aforementioned wards or
1744:
Cochrane review was criticized for combining studies about influenza and about COVID, which could "yield invalid conclusions". Another 2023 systematic review, by the Royal
Society, found the evidence from RCTs was that masks reduced risk by 12% to 18%.
1582:
As for the other reviews, "judgement on methodology not changing the article"... is cutting it a little close IMO, given that prose is a concern and mining a source is a policy. We have to make judgements all the time-- that's the difficulty of
1803:, a more productive alternative, given the presence of updated information and citations. In my opinion, reversions can only lead to a worse article, and more prose than necessary. So refining is more of a priority, rather than reverting.——
2234:
by means of respiratory droplets can be controlled in many settings with less restrictive measures (e.g., the use of surgical masks in quarantine). Studies examining the costs and effectiveness of various control measures are under way.
1655:
Actually, I caught a mistake in the lead citation, made by me, that was not said during the discussion. Specificity next time would have reduced the temperature, and got me to realize my mistakes in a shorter period of time. With that
2367:
Participants were randomized by ward to three arms: (1) medical masks at all times on shift; (2) N95 respirators at all times on shift; and (3) targeted (intermittent) use of N95 respirators only while doing high-risk procedures or
1494:
As for that discussion you linked, I think one has to loop back around to the top to see a noted omission in the discussions: compliance. As I said, you can have discussions all day without realizing the work already done (NIOSH TB
1447:
Of course I bloody read it; what kind of question is that? BMJ is also reputable, but that doesn't mean you get to remove a
Cochrane review with a misleading edit summary. There was already much discussion about how to include this
233:
248:
1685:
Various case-control and population-based studies have also shown that increased levels of masking in a community reduces the spread of SARS-CoV-2, though there is a paucity of evidence from randomized controlled trials
1176:
Unless the RCT study emphasizes worker training (required under 29 CFR 1910.134), it should probably be removed. Currently, I'm in the process of removing these RCT studies, but getting it right might take a
142:
1754:
Masks are not of equal efficacy. While N95 masks outperform surgical masks in filtration, healthcare worker population studies have not shown a significant difference between the two, as of June 2021.
2425:
269:
2136:
had a lot more to say on the
Cochrane Review than I anticipated. I'm going to try to think up another bold edit, keeping in mind that this is the only paper AFAIK challenging this at the moment.——
1638:
So, I'm not receiving much substantive feedback concerning this diff. I mean, it could be worded better, maybe certain phrases could be refined, additional citations and words could be added (see
1746:
This was removed for prose, and in light of the 2024 review, (again), I have to agree with myself again; not only does it add to the prose, it adds undue weight, especially after the phrasing
2430:
1235:
paragraphs dedicated to
Efficacy - Overall, and one large paragraph (the second one) just talking about RCTs. Understandable if one isn't aware of the Tuberculosis studies in the 1990s...
1914:
I'll wait until the end of the day if you (or anyone else) want to indicate your views, maybe even keeping the paragraph in the "overall" section. Otherwise, I'll commit to my changes.——
1838:. The material you are removing (and the article as whole) is about "masks", not further defined, as an intervention for the general public, whereas what is emphasized here seems to be
1957:
On a second read, yeah sure, I guess you could include it for now. I'm still not happy with the size of the article, but if size is not a concern, I can see why it should be included.
2376:
The rate of CRI was highest in the medical mask arm (98 of 572; 17%); followed by the targeted N95 arm (61 of 516; 11.8%); and lowest in the N95 arm (42 of 581; 7.2%) (P < 0.05).
1843:
315:
311:
1868:
the consensus process. Also, you keep emphasizing NPOV-- it's a bit (presumptuous(?)) to keep citing NPOV when we're all fallible people. I rely on you all to maintain NPOV, since
1526:
part of whether an intervention to promote masking can be effective. The subject is about more than mere physics of aerosols and suchlike, it's about realistic human behavior too.
1300:. However your edits removed not these, but reviews and systematic reviews. You also introduced irrelevant material into the lede (which should mirror the body). Hence, reverted.
2455:
730:
720:
1376:
updated
Coltrane review, you'll notice that the author's seem more concerned about randomization than, say, the length of time during which interventions were used. The other
282:
902:
1196:
in this article also pointing out the "confounding factor" problem, buried in point-counterpoints with RCT findings. I think this quote from the review sums it up best:
906:
1933:
after that discussion. The BMJ source pre-dates the
Cochrane one, so it doesn't rebut it. The text of the article needs to reflect the diversity of expert opinion with
30:
1562:
the 'not rigorous' bit is a
Knowledge editor's judgment of its methodology, that's not relevant at all and should not be used as a basis for changing the article.
65:
policies that state you must provide "verifiable, reliable sources" for contentious claims in articles. In the context of medical claims, an even stricter policy,
696:
80:: It's not a matter of opinion; I read the source material, and all the so-called evidence for masks is obvious nonsense that any rational person can see through.
2450:
92:
that does not allow users to make edits based on their own conclusions drawn from their own interpretation of source material. Please find some evidence from
359:
2384:
impact the N95 RCT result (and because they're following the protocol through fit testing and not allowing people with beards to participate in the trial.)
2356:
Participants using N95 respirators underwent a fit testing procedure using a 3M FT-30 Bitrex Fit Test Kit according to the manufacturer’s instructions (3M).
603:
515:
487:
2440:
631:
177:
1586:
Also the addition of new information and due and undue weight on older information... did you notice the new 2024 review that was added in my edits? ——
2475:
946:
936:
687:
664:
641:
2465:
1051:
835:
825:
2231:
Our data show that SARS spreads when it is not recognized. Once it was recognized, the infection-control measures that were instituted worked well.
2480:
122:
1491:
Hey, edit summaries may be mistyped and they might not be everything. That's why there's a talk page, and that's why I put more context in there.
2026:
When it gets published, we should obviously revisit this situation. But does anybody think we should return to this sooner? (See notes below).——
2490:
2445:
1896:
rather than keep of that review in particular. Removal... may seem a bit radical, but it's not outside the realm of possibility, based on this
1041:
1758:
A later study performed in 2024, however, criticized the methodology of such studies due to substantial healthcare worker compliance problems.
2495:
183:
1708:
1715:
is going to read this, and this doesn't give any impression that updates to the scientific consensus have occurred (see the 2024 review,
289:
911:
607:
2470:
2435:
1662:
1017:
801:
2460:
2045:
1822:
While the other changes seem okay to me at least and I left them in, I did revert (as did another editor previously) the removal of
1769:. See what I mean about the point-counterpoint issue? That's a longer-term issue that will have to be dealt with via this talk page.
1222:
Another note to the point-counterpoint problem: avoid mentioning RCTs, even if it's a rebuttal. The mere mention may give RCTs more
1775:
This is completely unnecessary, and adds to prose and undue weight. (The cited paper is still included in the following sentence.)
1263:
2485:
296:
197:
128:
49:: I read a blog page / Twitter / Facebook post and it says masks don't work and the research is bogus. Why can't I say it here?
1383:
I... don't know why you felt the need to restore these, given that one, it adds to the prose, and two, the fact that another,
1270:
masks with HEPA/Dust-fume-mist-radionuclides-asbestos filters, but still, reduction of expense was one of the goals stated in
1262:* (For those wondering after reading the TB guide: Yes, the N95 standard was designed so that hospitals wouldn't have to buy
897:
858:
594:
555:
202:
118:
2222:
Even though the matter above is settled (for now), I'd like to draw attention to the chart and this quote from the the NEJM
1904:
an issue noted by NIOSH, hence the creation of the
Hierachy of Controls and the emphasis on fit tests under 29 CFR 1910.134.
1120:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1990:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1711:. My main problem, initially, was the fact that mentioning this in the lead kinda gives undue weight to RCTs? I mean, the
1546:
I pointed out one of the reviews made clear it wasn't rigorous. So I think at least that can be omitted, just on prose. ——
1008:
969:
792:
753:
172:
1521:
I agree with Bon courage. I'll add that while sources seem to be divided on how ideal RCTs are for this topic, it isn't
1166:
462:
435:
403:
378:
351:
1773:
Cloth masks are insufficient for healthcare workers and not recommended, according to two randomized controlled trials.
275:
2294:
1449:
163:
1373:
1325:
Part of the reason why an excessive amount of material might have been removed is the prose is 200K, hard to verify.
410:, broadly construed, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
431:
374:
306:
2272:. All of these engineered objects are PPE too, that can be misused, and might need to be fitted to certain people!
1842:. These are not the same thing. And lastly, inclusion of the Cochrane study (and how) already reached a consensus
2103:
1388:
1126:
324:
1872:
can maintain NPOV on their own. Though as I said above, I would also... appreciate refinement over reversion.——
1705:
1275:
1247:
1205:
1178:
224:
1830:. We cannot reframe the entire topic due to a single review, when it is clear that multiple near-simultaneous
1271:
2320:
This is mostly just to solicit more papers though, because obviously we can't use these as an end by itself.
263:
207:
1779:
Clinical studies had not evaluated the efficacy of cloth masks in COVID-19 transmission by the end of 2021.
1647:
423:
366:
1432:
Textual citation? Did you read the review? I could just as easily claim that the BMJ is among the best.——
434:
may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the
377:
may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the
2411:
2332:
2305:
2287:
2215:
2187:
2168:
2146:
2116:
2095:
2076:
2072:
2058:
2036:
1970:
1950:
1924:
1882:
1854:
1813:
1800:
1639:
1596:
1570:
1556:
1534:
1516:
1482:
1459:
1455:
1442:
1423:
1419:
1411:
1405:
1363:
1359:
1338:
1309:
1305:
1284:
1256:
1214:
1187:
1108:
468:
2402:
2323:
2278:
2206:
2178:
2177:
Okay, just make sure that the article is updated to account for these concerns before the removal. ——
2137:
2107:
2086:
2049:
2027:
1961:
1934:
1915:
1873:
1804:
1587:
1547:
1507:
1473:
1433:
1396:
1329:
1099:
2347:
A Randomized Clinical Trial of Three Options for N95 Respirators and Medical Masks in Health Workers
2048:
thinks about this preprint, given it says the methodology is flawed. I'm going to put up a notice.——
2011:
crazy in thinking there was a problem with the Cochrane paper cited. Looks like somebody else had a
450:
1281:
1253:
1211:
1184:
692:
427:
370:
328:
153:
2351:
Actually, calling it an N95 RCT might be a bit of a misnomer; here are some quotes from the paper:
2346:
2297:
to me. COVID-19 is not SARS. RCTs on masks have been done, therefore it is possible and relevant.
1900:, long ago cited in the article, noting flaws based on lack of compliance, which, might I add, is
1016:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
800:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
695:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
1170:
329:
168:
1377:
580:
570:
549:
2063:
Preprints are useless for our purposes, and raising them could be seen as disruptive for this
149:
2396:
cannot. The question for the researchers and math experts who happen to read this talk page:
2315:
2082:
2068:
2004:
1960:
Okay, I'll consider this matter settled for now, unless anyone else wants to add anything.——
1631:
1488:
1465:
1451:
1429:
1415:
1369:
1355:
1317:
1301:
326:
1387:
review is already included in the article, long before I was here. I'm of the opinion that
1346:
Also adding pre-pandemic sources to this topic, which can never be relevant except through
2311:
2299:
2174:
2162:
2000:
1944:
1938:
1889:
1860:
1848:
1831:
1635:
1576:
1564:
1540:
1528:
1351:
1297:
1223:
889:
586:
101:
66:
2133:
1153:
It's been such a pervasive problem, that, even before COVID, even before the 2000s, OSHA
1911:
source, at least the lead needs to be changed. Am I missing or misinterpreting anything?
1897:
1384:
1193:
2064:
1835:
1691:
1522:
1192:
There also appears to be a problem with point-counterpoint statements. I found another
1139:
1000:
784:
2419:
2223:
1646:, this huge discussion not turning out much in terms of substance kind of feels like
1908:
1716:
1643:
1135:
416:
Editors are prohibited from adding preprints as sources for content in this article.
343:
1778:
1772:
1753:
1742:
1729:
1684:
1347:
510:
506:
392:
93:
89:
62:
1579:"rapid systematic review" in the above comment. Quoting directly from that review.
499:
481:
1700:
1320:
Could you highlight the diff or refs you think are most important or problematic?
1864:
For the record, you don't need to remind me that I need to seek consensus. This
58:
2380:
It's kind of odd that they didn't cite 29 CFR 1910.134 considering how much it
984:
963:
768:
747:
1143:
990:
879:
774:
679:
658:
576:
1929:
I don't see why you conclude that discussion makes it okay to remove. It was
1354:(or, if they are cited by relevant reliable source in which case use those).
1130:
1761:
1670:
Named references that were broken were re-added by the last diff, so that's
1543:
Hmm... perhaps it could be worded a bit better then. What are you proposing?
1157:
requires fit testing for all respirator users, and pre-dates the passage of
1078:
The section or sections that need attention may be noted in a message below.
2277:
If anyone has any papers on this matter, please feel free to let us know.——
1791:
that concludes all the changes that will occur following this discussion.
2085:
Yeah, but it's cited by the 2024 paper. This is giving me a headache...——
1697:
1694:
outperform surgical masks, while cloth masks provide marginal protection.
599:
407:
355:
223:
100:
support your claim. In the context of this article, that generally means
2268:. An RCT here would obviously be unethical here, along with every other
1764:
1343:
For example removing a Cochrane systematic review and calling it a RCT.
797:
1907:
What I'm saying here is, to give the proper weight to the BMJ and the
994:
1666:, here's a summary of what's been (and what is going to be) changed:
2020:
1750:, plus the problems mentioned above with this review in particular.
873:
852:
1146:) reiterates why this approach is a problem; namely, the issue of
1013:
2156:
review has comments on the Cochrane review, it's okay to include
602:-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to
25:
1138:, as well as any quick study on the history of respirators (see
1074:
This topic is in need of attention from an expert on the subject
909:. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at
239:
1846:. Please do not remove it again without a consensus to do so.
1781:
This could be replaced with the citation I added in the lead.
1067:
444:
406:
procedure applies to this article. This article is related to
387:
338:
330:
113:
15:
2260:
This reminds me of drowning deaths due to people not wearing
901:, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the
1937:; I still get the impression the attempt here is to try to
2316:
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M22-1966#_comments
422:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the
365:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the
1129:
for masks. This has been a thing since the H1N1 outbreak.
247:
354:
procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
2152:
1892:
As far as I can tell, the consensus there is more of a
1823:
1344:
1125:
In the past, many have put a great deal of emphasis on
36:
2102:
This... this is why adding multiple papers instead of
2426:
Knowledge contentious topics with custom restrictions
2226:
back during the 2003 SARS pandemic (emphasis mine):
1012:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
796:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
691:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
2160:material, but still only with NPOV and due weight.
1739:, and I'll do it for now, but it adds to the prose.
1328:
Named references were re-added to other sections.——
2431:Articles copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors
2392:be conducted as a meaningful RCT. Respirators by
1169:placing PPE last, mostly due to potential worker
598:, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all
131:for general discussion of the article's subject.
2374:
2365:
2359:
2354:
2228:
1197:
905:and that biomedical information in any article
2318:- Discounting these concerns is questionable.
2264:, or people being blinded due to not wearing
1380:on the other, is a "rapid systematic review."
1266:for mitigating HIV-induced TB... okay, maybe
903:Manual of Style for medicine-related articles
295:
255:
8:
2349:published in the American Thoracic Society.
1826:content. The 2024 review emphasized here is
1246:), I think this can be condensed a little.⸺(
2456:Low-importance Disaster management articles
1391:is more helpful for readers than including
1240:1992 NIOSH TB Guide is online on Wikisource
525:Knowledge:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
2106:a source can get us in a lot of trouble.——
1834:reviews vary on the question. This is per
958:
847:
742:
653:
544:
528:Template:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
476:
1690:Masks vary in how well they work. Fitted
1231:Also, this article is like 200k in size,
705:Knowledge:WikiProject Disaster management
1499:Little un-rigorous note: And if there's
708:Template:WikiProject Disaster management
1088:Removal of RCT mask studies in progress
960:
849:
744:
655:
546:
478:
448:
123:Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic
2314:Comments and concerns from faculty at
1995:Heads up: preprint mirrors my concerns
1893:
1795:If anyone has anything else to add, I
1757:
1747:
1736:
1689:
88:: Unfortunately, Knowledge also has a
2293:This looks like it's heading towards
2007:So it turns out, after a search... I
281:
7:
2451:C-Class Disaster management articles
2388:Here's my hot take: 29 CFR 1910.134
1709:Source control (respiratory disease)
1116:The following discussion is closed.
1006:This article is within the scope of
895:This article is within the scope of
790:This article is within the scope of
685:This article is within the scope of
592:This article is within the scope of
399:Warning: active arbitration remedies
358:, broadly construed, which has been
912:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Medicine
121:for discussing improvements to the
1663:Special:Diff/1245134053/1245122934
14:
2441:High-importance COVID-19 articles
1414:and this one was very impactful.
1264:Powered air-purifying respirators
2476:Low-importance medicine articles
1986:The discussion above is closed.
1161:(the N95, P100 rating, etc.) on
993:
983:
962:
907:use high-quality medical sources
882:
872:
851:
777:
767:
746:
678:
657:
579:
569:
548:
498:
480:
449:
391:
342:
143:Click here to start a new topic.
24:
2466:Low-importance fashion articles
2201:Notice: This section was added
1828:not the only word on this topic
1410:Cochrane reviews are among the
1046:This article has been rated as
941:This article has been rated as
830:This article has been rated as
725:This article has been rated as
688:WikiProject Disaster management
636:This article has been rated as
2481:All WikiProject Medicine pages
2412:18:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
2333:00:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
2306:23:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
2288:21:45, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
2216:00:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
2188:23:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
2169:23:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
2147:03:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
2117:04:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
2096:03:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
2077:03:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
2059:03:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
2037:03:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
1971:18:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
1951:18:51, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
1925:18:34, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
1883:17:49, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
1855:17:29, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
1814:04:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
1597:00:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
1571:00:40, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
1557:00:33, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
1535:00:23, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
1517:16:46, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
1483:16:30, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
1460:16:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
1443:16:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
1424:16:22, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
1406:16:20, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
1364:11:20, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
1339:08:00, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
1310:06:11, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
1285:04:30, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
1257:04:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
1215:03:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
1200:masks owing to a lack of data.
1188:03:34, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
1109:04:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
1098:Additions only, no removals.——
921:Knowledge:WikiProject Medicine
616:Knowledge:WikiProject COVID-19
531:Guild of Copy Editors articles
467:It is of interest to multiple
1:
2491:Low-importance virus articles
2446:WikiProject COVID-19 articles
1372:If you look on page 15-22 on
1274:Federal Register document.)⸺(
1026:Knowledge:WikiProject Viruses
1020:and see a list of open tasks.
924:Template:WikiProject Medicine
810:Knowledge:WikiProject Fashion
804:and see a list of open tasks.
699:and see a list of open tasks.
619:Template:WikiProject COVID-19
436:contentious topics procedures
379:contentious topics procedures
140:Put new text under old text.
2496:WikiProject Viruses articles
2245:of RCTs, if say, the danger
2241:What does this mean for the
1707:, based on contributions to
1644:this review released in 2024
1504:learned if more were picked.
1167:Hierarchy of hazard controls
1029:Template:WikiProject Viruses
813:Template:WikiProject Fashion
711:Disaster management articles
1735:was removed. This could be
148:New to Knowledge? Welcome!
90:no original research policy
2512:
1783:I'll go ahead and do that.
1748:While RCTs are more robust
1052:project's importance scale
947:project's importance scale
836:project's importance scale
731:project's importance scale
642:project's importance scale
41:Frequently asked questions
2471:C-Class medicine articles
2436:C-Class COVID-19 articles
1127:randomized control trials
1045:
978:
940:
867:
829:
762:
724:
673:
635:
564:
493:
475:
438:before editing this page.
381:before editing this page.
178:Be welcoming to newcomers
2461:C-Class fashion articles
2196:Future improvement notes
1988:Please do not modify it.
1144:Respirator#Disadvantages
1118:Please do not modify it.
432:normal editorial process
375:normal editorial process
102:medical reliable sources
2046:Wikiproject mathematics
362:as a contentious topic.
2486:C-Class virus articles
2378:
2370:
2364:
2358:
2236:
1468:Okay, calm down. That
1226:weight than necessary.
1202:
606:and to participate in
457:This article is rated
428:standards of behaviour
371:standards of behaviour
173:avoid personal attacks
1165:. Not to mention the
522:Guild of Copy Editors
519:, on 1 November 2022.
516:Guild of Copy Editors
488:Guild of Copy Editors
221:Find medical sources:
198:Neutral point of view
2345:I found a RCT named
2295:WP:Original research
2205:the section above.——
2044:Gosh, I wonder what
2017:we can't cite it yet
1238:...but now that the
898:WikiProject Medicine
595:WikiProject COVID-19
424:purpose of Knowledge
367:purpose of Knowledge
203:No original research
1642:), but in light of
1009:WikiProject Viruses
793:WikiProject Fashion
702:Disaster management
693:Disaster management
665:Disaster management
608:project discussions
1840:properly worn N95s
1733:
1674:going to be issue.
1119:
513:, a member of the
463:content assessment
404:contentious topics
400:
352:contentious topics
227:
184:dispute resolution
145:
2400:
2352:
2341:A weird "N95 RCT"
2321:
2273:
2270:engineered object
2257:
2254:
2251:
2247:is not recognized
2019:, check out this
1885:
1730:
1696:Ref changed from
1505:
1287:
1117:
1083:
1082:
1066:
1065:
1062:
1061:
1058:
1057:
957:
956:
953:
952:
927:medicine articles
846:
845:
842:
841:
741:
740:
737:
736:
652:
651:
648:
647:
622:COVID-19 articles
543:
542:
539:
538:
505:This article was
443:
442:
398:
386:
385:
337:
336:
226:Source guidelines
225:
164:Assume good faith
141:
112:
111:
39:
2503:
2387:
2350:
2319:
2304:
2259:
2256:
2253:
2250:
2167:
1949:
1863:
1853:
1780:
1774:
1755:
1745:
1734:
1687:
1625:Second bold edit
1569:
1533:
1498:
1261:
1068:
1034:
1033:
1030:
1027:
1024:
1003:
998:
997:
987:
980:
979:
974:
966:
959:
929:
928:
925:
922:
919:
892:
887:
886:
885:
876:
869:
868:
863:
855:
848:
818:
817:
816:fashion articles
814:
811:
808:
787:
782:
781:
780:
771:
764:
763:
758:
750:
743:
713:
712:
709:
706:
703:
682:
675:
674:
669:
661:
654:
624:
623:
620:
617:
614:
589:
584:
583:
573:
566:
565:
560:
552:
545:
533:
532:
529:
526:
523:
502:
495:
494:
484:
477:
460:
454:
453:
445:
395:
388:
346:
339:
331:
300:
299:
285:
259:
251:
243:
229:
193:Article policies
114:
94:reliable sources
63:reliable sources
57:: Knowledge has
29:
28:
16:
2511:
2510:
2506:
2505:
2504:
2502:
2501:
2500:
2416:
2415:
2343:
2298:
2198:
2161:
2134:the paper added
1997:
1992:
1991:
1943:
1847:
1648:WP:stonewalling
1627:
1563:
1527:
1389:mining a source
1155:29 CFR 1910.134
1122:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1095:
1090:
1079:
1031:
1028:
1025:
1022:
1021:
999:
992:
972:
926:
923:
920:
917:
916:
890:Medicine portal
888:
883:
881:
861:
815:
812:
809:
806:
805:
783:
778:
776:
756:
710:
707:
704:
701:
700:
667:
638:High-importance
621:
618:
615:
612:
611:
587:COVID-19 portal
585:
578:
559:High‑importance
558:
530:
527:
524:
521:
520:
461:on Knowledge's
458:
426:, any expected
419:
369:, any expected
333:
332:
327:
219:
214:
213:
212:
189:
159:
108:
107:
42:
40:
12:
11:
5:
2509:
2507:
2499:
2498:
2493:
2488:
2483:
2478:
2473:
2468:
2463:
2458:
2453:
2448:
2443:
2438:
2433:
2428:
2418:
2417:
2342:
2339:
2338:
2337:
2336:
2335:
2275:
2274:
2266:safety glasses
2220:
2219:
2218:
2197:
2194:
2193:
2192:
2191:
2190:
2130:
2129:
2128:
2127:
2126:
2125:
2124:
2123:
2122:
2121:
2120:
2119:
1996:
1993:
1985:
1984:
1983:
1982:
1981:
1980:
1979:
1978:
1977:
1976:
1975:
1974:
1973:
1958:
1912:
1905:
1886:
1817:
1816:
1801:WP:Bold-refine
1786:
1785:
1776:
1770:
1756:Then I added:
1751:
1740:
1721:
1720:
1713:general public
1676:
1675:
1658:
1657:
1652:
1651:
1640:WP:Bold-refine
1626:
1623:
1622:
1621:
1620:
1619:
1618:
1617:
1616:
1615:
1614:
1613:
1612:
1611:
1610:
1609:
1608:
1607:
1606:
1605:
1604:
1603:
1602:
1601:
1600:
1599:
1584:
1580:
1544:
1496:
1492:
1485:
1426:
1412:WP:BESTSOURCES
1395:RCT reviews.——
1381:
1326:
1322:
1321:
1293:
1292:
1291:
1290:
1289:
1288:
1236:
1228:
1227:
1191:
1140:N95 respirator
1123:
1114:
1097:
1096:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1089:
1086:
1081:
1080:
1077:
1071:
1064:
1063:
1060:
1059:
1056:
1055:
1048:Low-importance
1044:
1038:
1037:
1035:
1032:virus articles
1018:the discussion
1005:
1004:
1001:Viruses portal
988:
976:
975:
973:Low‑importance
967:
955:
954:
951:
950:
943:Low-importance
939:
933:
932:
930:
894:
893:
877:
865:
864:
862:Low‑importance
856:
844:
843:
840:
839:
832:Low-importance
828:
822:
821:
819:
802:the discussion
789:
788:
785:Fashion portal
772:
760:
759:
757:Low‑importance
751:
739:
738:
735:
734:
727:Low-importance
723:
717:
716:
714:
697:the discussion
683:
671:
670:
668:Low‑importance
662:
650:
649:
646:
645:
634:
628:
627:
625:
591:
590:
574:
562:
561:
553:
541:
540:
537:
536:
534:
503:
491:
490:
485:
473:
472:
466:
455:
441:
440:
418:
417:
413:
396:
384:
383:
347:
335:
334:
325:
323:
322:
319:
318:
302:
301:
216:
215:
211:
210:
205:
200:
191:
190:
188:
187:
180:
175:
166:
160:
158:
157:
146:
137:
136:
133:
132:
126:
110:
109:
106:
105:
82:
81:
73:
71:
70:
51:
50:
43:
23:
22:
21:
19:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2508:
2497:
2494:
2492:
2489:
2487:
2484:
2482:
2479:
2477:
2474:
2472:
2469:
2467:
2464:
2462:
2459:
2457:
2454:
2452:
2449:
2447:
2444:
2442:
2439:
2437:
2434:
2432:
2429:
2427:
2424:
2423:
2421:
2414:
2413:
2410:
2409:
2405:
2399:
2395:
2391:
2385:
2383:
2377:
2373:
2369:
2363:
2357:
2353:
2348:
2340:
2334:
2331:
2330:
2326:
2317:
2313:
2309:
2308:
2307:
2303:
2302:
2296:
2292:
2291:
2290:
2289:
2286:
2285:
2281:
2271:
2267:
2263:
2258:
2255:
2252:
2248:
2244:
2240:
2235:
2232:
2227:
2225:
2217:
2214:
2213:
2209:
2204:
2200:
2199:
2195:
2189:
2186:
2185:
2181:
2176:
2172:
2171:
2170:
2166:
2165:
2159:
2154:
2151:
2150:
2149:
2148:
2145:
2144:
2140:
2135:
2118:
2115:
2114:
2110:
2105:
2101:
2100:
2099:
2098:
2097:
2094:
2093:
2089:
2084:
2080:
2079:
2078:
2074:
2070:
2066:
2062:
2061:
2060:
2057:
2056:
2052:
2047:
2043:
2042:
2041:
2040:
2039:
2038:
2035:
2034:
2030:
2024:
2022:
2018:
2014:
2010:
2006:
2002:
1994:
1989:
1972:
1969:
1968:
1964:
1959:
1956:
1955:
1954:
1953:
1952:
1948:
1947:
1940:
1936:
1935:WP:Due weight
1932:
1928:
1927:
1926:
1923:
1922:
1918:
1913:
1910:
1906:
1903:
1899:
1895:
1891:
1887:
1884:
1881:
1880:
1876:
1871:
1867:
1862:
1858:
1857:
1856:
1852:
1851:
1845:
1841:
1837:
1833:
1829:
1825:
1821:
1820:
1819:
1818:
1815:
1812:
1811:
1807:
1802:
1798:
1794:
1793:
1792:
1790:
1784:
1777:
1771:
1768:
1765:
1762:
1759:
1752:
1749:
1741:
1738:
1728:
1727:
1726:
1725:
1718:
1714:
1710:
1706:
1704:
1701:
1698:
1695:
1693:
1683:
1682:
1681:
1680:
1673:
1669:
1668:
1667:
1665:
1664:
1654:
1653:
1649:
1645:
1641:
1637:
1633:
1629:
1628:
1624:
1598:
1595:
1594:
1590:
1585:
1581:
1578:
1574:
1573:
1572:
1568:
1567:
1560:
1559:
1558:
1555:
1554:
1550:
1545:
1542:
1538:
1537:
1536:
1532:
1531:
1524:
1520:
1519:
1518:
1515:
1514:
1510:
1502:
1497:
1493:
1490:
1486:
1484:
1481:
1480:
1476:
1471:
1467:
1463:
1462:
1461:
1457:
1453:
1450:
1446:
1445:
1444:
1441:
1440:
1436:
1431:
1427:
1425:
1421:
1417:
1413:
1409:
1408:
1407:
1404:
1403:
1399:
1394:
1390:
1386:
1382:
1379:
1375:
1371:
1367:
1366:
1365:
1361:
1357:
1353:
1349:
1345:
1342:
1341:
1340:
1337:
1336:
1332:
1327:
1324:
1323:
1319:
1315:
1314:
1313:
1312:
1311:
1307:
1303:
1299:
1296:RCTs are not
1295:
1294:
1286:
1283:
1279:
1278:
1273:
1269:
1265:
1260:
1259:
1258:
1255:
1251:
1250:
1245:
1241:
1237:
1234:
1230:
1229:
1225:
1221:
1220:
1219:
1218:
1217:
1216:
1213:
1209:
1208:
1201:
1195:
1190:
1189:
1186:
1182:
1181:
1174:
1172:
1168:
1164:
1163:July 10, 1995
1160:
1156:
1151:
1149:
1148:noncompliance
1145:
1141:
1137:
1132:
1131:
1128:
1121:
1110:
1107:
1106:
1102:
1087:
1085:
1075:
1072:
1070:
1069:
1053:
1049:
1043:
1040:
1039:
1036:
1019:
1015:
1011:
1010:
1002:
996:
991:
989:
986:
982:
981:
977:
971:
968:
965:
961:
948:
944:
938:
935:
934:
931:
914:
913:
908:
904:
900:
899:
891:
880:
878:
875:
871:
870:
866:
860:
857:
854:
850:
837:
833:
827:
824:
823:
820:
803:
799:
795:
794:
786:
775:
773:
770:
766:
765:
761:
755:
752:
749:
745:
732:
728:
722:
719:
718:
715:
698:
694:
690:
689:
684:
681:
677:
676:
672:
666:
663:
660:
656:
643:
639:
633:
630:
629:
626:
609:
605:
601:
597:
596:
588:
582:
577:
575:
572:
568:
567:
563:
557:
554:
551:
547:
535:
518:
517:
512:
508:
504:
501:
497:
496:
492:
489:
486:
483:
479:
474:
470:
464:
456:
452:
447:
446:
439:
437:
433:
429:
425:
420:
415:
414:
411:
409:
405:
397:
394:
390:
389:
382:
380:
376:
372:
368:
363:
361:
357:
353:
348:
345:
341:
340:
321:
320:
317:
313:
310:
308:
304:
303:
298:
294:
291:
288:
284:
280:
277:
274:
271:
270:ScienceDirect
268:
265:
262:
258:
254:
250:
246:
242:
238:
235:
232:
228:
222:
218:
217:
209:
208:Verifiability
206:
204:
201:
199:
196:
195:
194:
185:
181:
179:
176:
174:
170:
167:
165:
162:
161:
155:
151:
150:Learn to edit
147:
144:
139:
138:
135:
134:
130:
124:
120:
116:
115:
103:
99:
95:
91:
87:
84:
83:
79:
76:
75:
74:
68:
64:
60:
59:verifiability
56:
53:
52:
48:
45:
44:
38:
35:
32:
27:
20:
18:
17:
2407:
2403:
2397:
2393:
2389:
2386:
2381:
2379:
2375:
2371:
2366:
2362:departments.
2360:
2355:
2344:
2328:
2324:
2300:
2283:
2279:
2276:
2269:
2265:
2262:life jackets
2261:
2246:
2242:
2238:
2237:
2230:
2229:
2221:
2211:
2207:
2202:
2183:
2179:
2163:
2157:
2142:
2138:
2131:
2112:
2108:
2091:
2087:
2054:
2050:
2032:
2028:
2025:
2016:
2013:similar idea
2012:
2008:
1998:
1987:
1966:
1962:
1945:
1930:
1920:
1916:
1901:
1878:
1874:
1869:
1865:
1849:
1839:
1827:
1809:
1805:
1796:
1788:
1787:
1782:
1766:
1723:
1722:
1712:
1702:
1678:
1677:
1671:
1661:
1659:
1592:
1588:
1565:
1552:
1548:
1529:
1512:
1508:
1500:
1478:
1474:
1469:
1438:
1434:
1401:
1397:
1392:
1334:
1330:
1276:
1267:
1248:
1232:
1206:
1203:
1198:
1179:
1175:
1162:
1158:
1154:
1152:
1147:
1133:
1124:
1115:
1104:
1100:
1084:
1073:
1047:
1007:
942:
910:
896:
831:
791:
726:
686:
637:
593:
514:
469:WikiProjects
421:
412:
401:
364:
349:
305:
292:
286:
278:
272:
266:
260:
252:
244:
236:
230:
220:
192:
117:This is the
97:
85:
77:
72:
54:
46:
33:
2243:reliability
2224:this source
2083:Bon courage
2069:Bon courage
2005:Bon courage
1760:Citations:
1632:Bon courage
1489:Bon courage
1466:Bon courage
1452:Bon courage
1430:Bon courage
1416:Bon courage
1370:Bon courage
1356:Bon courage
1318:Bon courage
1302:Bon courage
507:copy edited
129:not a forum
2420:Categories
2394:themselves
2372:Findings:
2312:Crossroads
2301:Crossroads
2175:Crossroads
2164:Crossroads
2132:Turns out
2001:Crossroads
1946:Crossroads
1939:synthesize
1898:BMJ review
1890:Crossroads
1861:Crossroads
1850:Crossroads
1799:encourage
1636:Crossroads
1583:consensus.
1577:Crossroads
1566:Crossroads
1541:Crossroads
1530:Crossroads
1472:helpful.——
1244:references
360:designated
69:, applies.
2406:tapler's
2327:tapler's
2282:tapler's
2239:Question:
2210:tapler's
2182:tapler's
2141:tapler's
2111:tapler's
2090:tapler's
2053:tapler's
2031:tapler's
2015:. Though
1965:tapler's
1919:tapler's
1877:tapler's
1808:tapler's
1660:Based on
1591:tapler's
1551:tapler's
1511:tapler's
1477:tapler's
1437:tapler's
1400:tapler's
1333:tapler's
1159:42 CFR 84
1103:tapler's
430:, or any
373:, or any
186:if needed
169:Be polite
119:talk page
2368:barrier.
2021:preprint
1832:WP:MEDRS
1797:strongly
1737:re-added
1724:Overall:
1393:multiple
1352:WP:SYNTH
1298:WP:MEDRS
1282:staplers
1254:staplers
1212:staplers
1185:staplers
1177:while.⸺(
1094:RESOLVED
918:Medicine
859:Medicine
613:COVID-19
600:COVID-19
556:COVID-19
408:COVID-19
356:COVID-19
307:Archives
276:Springer
241:Cochrane
154:get help
127:This is
125:article.
98:directly
67:WP:MEDRS
2404:Randoms
2325:Randoms
2280:Randoms
2208:Randoms
2180:Randoms
2139:Randoms
2109:Randoms
2088:Randoms
2065:WP:CTOP
2051:Randoms
2029:Randoms
1963:Randoms
1917:Randoms
1875:Randoms
1836:WP:NPOV
1806:Randoms
1686:(RCTs).
1589:Randoms
1549:Randoms
1523:WP:NPOV
1509:Randoms
1495:Guide).
1475:Randoms
1448:source.
1435:Randoms
1398:Randoms
1331:Randoms
1134:A 2024
1101:Randoms
1050:on the
1023:Viruses
1014:viruses
970:Viruses
945:on the
834:on the
807:Fashion
798:Fashion
754:Fashion
729:on the
640:on the
511:Rsjaffe
459:C-class
2203:before
2104:mining
2009:wasn't
1870:nobody
1385:better
1378:review
1277:Random
1249:Random
1207:Random
1194:review
1180:Random
1136:review
465:scale.
264:OpenMD
234:PubMed
2382:could
1931:added
1789:Okay,
1767:added
1763:with
1717:again
1679:Lead:
1656:said:
1348:WP:OR
1224:undue
1171:error
290:Wiley
182:Seek
2398:Why?
2158:that
2153:This
2073:talk
1902:also
1894:wait
1844:here
1824:this
1719:). M
1699:and
1692:N95s
1501:that
1456:talk
1420:talk
1374:this
1360:talk
1306:talk
1272:this
1268:just
1233:five
1142:and
632:High
604:join
402:The
350:The
283:Trip
257:Gale
249:DOAJ
171:and
61:and
37:edit
31:view
2408:alt
2390:can
2329:alt
2284:alt
2212:alt
2184:alt
2143:alt
2113:alt
2092:alt
2055:alt
2033:alt
1967:alt
1921:alt
1909:ASM
1879:alt
1810:alt
1688:to
1672:not
1593:alt
1553:alt
1513:alt
1479:alt
1439:alt
1402:alt
1335:alt
1150:.
1105:alt
1042:Low
937:Low
826:Low
721:Low
509:by
297:TWL
96:to
2422::
2401:——
2322:——
2249:?
2075:)
2067:.
2023:.
1866:is
1703:to
1506:——
1470:is
1458:)
1422:)
1362:)
1308:)
1204:⸺(
1173:.
314:,
152:;
2310:@
2173:@
2081:@
2071:(
2003:@
1999:@
1888:@
1859:@
1650:.
1634:@
1630:@
1575:@
1539:@
1487:@
1464:@
1454:(
1428:@
1418:(
1368:@
1358:(
1350:/
1316:@
1304:(
1280:)
1252:)
1242:(
1210:)
1183:)
1076:.
1054:.
949:.
915:.
838:.
733:.
644:.
610:.
471:.
316:2
312:1
309::
293:·
287:·
279:·
273:·
267:·
261:·
253:·
245:·
237:·
231:·
156:.
104:.
86:A
78:Q
55:A
47:Q
34:·
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
