Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026
Risks and benefits of face masks in children.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kisielinski Kai, Steigleder-Schweiger Claudia, Wagner Susanne, Korupp Stephan, Hockertz Stefan, Hirsch Oliver
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Children, a significant and vulnerable portion of the global population, are particularly susceptible to environmental factors.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic search and scoping review of 3,144 articles, including 107 publications from medical literature, to assess mask use in children during the 2020-2023 pandemic. We examined expected viral protection vs. scientific evidence and side effects, synthesizing findings with SWiM and GRADE frameworks for evidence certainty and the Cochrane adverse effects approach.
RESULTS: Masking children lacks ecological validity, with high-quality studies showing little real-world effectiveness against viruses. On the other hand, side effects can clearly be identified. Masks contain hazardous materials (carcinogens, heavy metals, organic compounds, and microplastic), impacting childreńs health by altering inhaled air (including elevated carbon dioxide) and causing many physical symptoms and bio-psychosocial issues (MIES, mask-induced exhaustion syndrome), akin to sick building syndrome. Toxicological assessments highlight risks to biology of the young. Evidence certainty is high for non-effectiveness, moderate for risks and side effects, and low to very low for viral protection or benefits in children.
CONCLUSIONS: With a negligible COVID-19 mortality rate in children (0.0003%) and no evidence of child-to-child or school-based transmission, masks offered little benefit during the pandemic. The documented adverse effects-respiratory impairment, toxicity, and health risks-outweigh any justification for their mandatory use. An individual risk-benefit analysis is essential (individual medical advice), but this review suggests avoiding this intervention in children because of its numerous downsides and the lack of proven efficacy. It is the responsibility of political leaders to address our findings.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic search and scoping review of 3,144 articles, including 107 publications from medical literature, to assess mask use in children during the 2020-2023 pandemic. We examined expected viral protection vs. scientific evidence and side effects, synthesizing findings with SWiM and GRADE frameworks for evidence certainty and the Cochrane adverse effects approach.
RESULTS: Masking children lacks ecological validity, with high-quality studies showing little real-world effectiveness against viruses. On the other hand, side effects can clearly be identified. Masks contain hazardous materials (carcinogens, heavy metals, organic compounds, and microplastic), impacting childreńs health by altering inhaled air (including elevated carbon dioxide) and causing many physical symptoms and bio-psychosocial issues (MIES, mask-induced exhaustion syndrome), akin to sick building syndrome. Toxicological assessments highlight risks to biology of the young. Evidence certainty is high for non-effectiveness, moderate for risks and side effects, and low to very low for viral protection or benefits in children.
CONCLUSIONS: With a negligible COVID-19 mortality rate in children (0.0003%) and no evidence of child-to-child or school-based transmission, masks offered little benefit during the pandemic. The documented adverse effects-respiratory impairment, toxicity, and health risks-outweigh any justification for their mandatory use. An individual risk-benefit analysis is essential (individual medical advice), but this review suggests avoiding this intervention in children because of its numerous downsides and the lack of proven efficacy. It is the responsibility of political leaders to address our findings.