The goal of using N95 respirators, surgical masks, or cloth masks is to prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection from asymptomatic or symptomatic infected persons to uninfected persons (source control).

For careful veils, there was moderate-sureness proof of nonserious hurts, for example, uneasiness and trouble in breathing, contrasted and no cover use and low-conviction proof demonstrated that N95 respirators may not expand distress contrasted and careful covers. Low-assurance proof indicated that veil use and steady cover use may diminish the danger for SARS-CoV-1 contamination contrasted and no cover use and conflicting veil use in medical care settings, yet examinations didn’t determine veil type.

Indirect evidence from studies reporting on the risk for non coronavirus respiratory infections showed that N95 respirators probably do not reduce the risk for non coronavirus respiratory infections compared with surgical masks (moderate certainty) and that surgical masks may reduce the risk for clinical respiratory illness, laboratory-confirmed viral infections, and influenza-like illness compared with cloth masks (low certainty). Indirect evidence was insufficient about the effect of N95 respirators or surgical masks compared with cloth masks, and surgical masks and cloth masks compared with no masks, on the risk for SARS-CoV-1 infection. Low-certainty evidence showed that N95 respirators may increase some non serious harms, such as discomfort, breathing difficulties, and headache, compared with surgical masks and moderate-certainty indirect evidence that those harms probably do not increase with the use of surgical masks compared with cloth masks.

The CDC doesn’t consider material veils as PPE in medical services settings, given the absence of proof of their viability against transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

Ref: https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-3234