Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T21:39:16.830Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Time to remind us that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 February 2021

Chenyu Sun*
Affiliation:
AMITA Health Saint Joseph Hospital Chicago, Chicago, Illinois
Ce Cheng
Affiliation:
The University of Arizona College of Medicine at South Campus, Tucson, Arizona
Mubashir Ayaz Ahmed
Affiliation:
AMITA Health Saint Joseph Hospital Chicago, Chicago, Illinois
Qin Zhou
Affiliation:
Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
*
Author for correspondence: Chenyu Sun, E-mail: drsunchenyu@yeah.net
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
Letter to the Editor
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America

To the Editor—During the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, guidelines issued by various agencies, including the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), have been conflicting on the issue of respiratory protection with a face mask or a respirator. Reference MacIntyre and Wang1 The CDC has not officially announced the protective effects of masks for the wearers until recently, 2 and even now, its web pages still show that surgical mask “is not considered respiratory protection.” 3

Earlier this year, research on the protective effects of masks was limited, indicating lack of sufficient evidence to support the protective effects of masks to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SAS-CoV-2). However, the lack of evidence that masks have protective effects to respiratory viral infections is not equivalent to evidence that masks lack protective effects. It would be prudent to refrain from premature conclusions without further comprehensive studies. As Mark Twain said, “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.” At this time, we remind ourselves that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Reference Alderson4 Interestingly, while evidence of mask use against other viruses has not been strong enough for the CDC to suggest the protective effects of mask wearing, Reference Liang, Gao and Cheng5 remdesivir was approved for emergency or experimental use, with only limited evidence, as a therapeutic candidate due to its ability to inhibit SARS-CoV-2 in vitro and against other coronaviruses. Reference Beigel, Tomashek and Dodd6 When it comes to wearing masks, a simple nonpharmaceutical intervention method with minimal side effects, how did the lack of evidence lead to recommendations against wearing them among the general public at the beginning of the pandemic? And even later, the CDC only recommended wearing masks to prevent asymptotic carriers and presymptomatic patients from spreading the virus. 7

Again, we remind ourselves, when issues of public health are concerned, we must question whether the absence of evidence is a valid justification for inaction. Reference Altman and Bland8 Statements about the absence of evidence are common, such as protective effects of masks for the general public at the beginning of current COVID-19 pandemic. However, can we be comfortable that the absence of solid and clear evidence is equivalent to the position that masks provide no protective effects or only negligible effects? For this global threat, it is better to be safe than sorry, and we should take every possible reasonable intervention.

Financial support

No financial support was provided relevant to this article.

Conflicts of interest

All authors report no conflicts of interest relevant to this article.

References

MacIntyre, CR, Wang, Q. Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection for prevention of COVID-19. Lancet 2020;395:19501951.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scientific brief: community use of cloth masks to control the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/more/masking-science-sars-cov2.html. Published 2020. Accessed February 3, 2021.Google Scholar
Understanding the difference. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npptl/pdfs/UnderstandDifferenceInfographic-508.pdf. Published 2020. Accessed February 3, 2021.Google Scholar
Alderson, P. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. BMJ 2004;328:476477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liang, M, Gao, L, Cheng, C, et al. Efficacy of face mask in preventing respiratory virus transmission: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Travel Med Infect Dis 2020;36:101751.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beigel, JH, Tomashek, KM, Dodd, LE, et al. Remdesivir for the treatment of COVID-19— final report. N Engl J Med 2020. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2007764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Federal Register notice: wearing of face masks while on conveyances and at transportation hubs. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website. https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/masks/mask-travel-guidance.html. Published 2020. Accessed February 3, 2021.Google Scholar
Altman, DG, Bland, JM. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. BMJ 1995;311:485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar