Background: The German government has made it mandatory to wear respiratory masks covering mouth and nose (MNC) as an effective strategy to fight SARS-CoV-2 infections. In many countries, this directive has been extended on shopping malls or public transportation. The aim of this paper is to critically analyze the statutory regulation to wear protective masks during the COVID-19 crisis from a medical standpoint. Methods: We performed an extensive query of the most recent publications addressing the prevention of viral infections including the use of face masks in the community as a method to prevent the spread of the infection. We addressed the issues of practicability, professional use, and acceptability based on the community and the environment where the user resided. Results: Upon our critical review of the available literature, we found only weak evidence for wearing a face mask as an efficient hygienic tool to prevent the spread of a viral infection. However, the use of MNC seems to be linked to relevant protection during close contact scenarios by limiting pathogen-containing aerosol and liquid droplet dissemination. Importantly, we found evidence for significant respiratory compromise in patients with severe obstructive pulmonary disease, secondary to the development of hypercapnia. This could also happen in patients with lung infections, with or without SARS-CoV-2. Conclusion: Epidemiologists currently emphasize that wearing MNC will effectively interrupt airborne infections in the community. The government and the politicians have followed these recommendations and used them to both advise and, in some cases, mandate the general population to wear MNC in public locations. Overall, the results seem to suggest that there are some clinically relevant scenarios where the use of MNC necessitates more defined recommendations. Our critical evaluation of the literature both highlights the protective effects of certain types of face masks in defined risk groups, and emphasizes their potential risks.

In the human population, social contacts are a key for transmission of bacteria and viruses. The use of face masks seems to be critical to prevent the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 for the period, in which therapeutic interventions are lacking. In this review, we describe the history of masks from the middle age to modern times.

The present studies were conducted to test whether the outcome of severe head injury is improved by early administration of the synthetic corticosteroid triamcinolone. In a prospective, double-blind, multicenter clinical trial, 396 patients with severe head injury were randomized to a steroid group (n = 187) receiving 200 mg triamcinolone acetonide (Volon A soluble) i.v. within 4 h after trauma, followed by 3 x 40 mg/day i.v. for 4 days, and 3 x 20 mg/day i.v. for a further 4 days, and a placebo group (n = 209) receiving injections which did not contain any active drug. The placebo group was subjected to the same standard treatment procedures. Clinical features were not different between the groups upon admission to hospital. Subdural hematoma, epidural hematoma, and focal supratentorial contusion were among the most frequent diagnoses. The result of treatment with triamcinolone was assessed at discharge from the hospital and at 1 year after trauma, using the Glasgow Outcome Scale. Differences in favor of steroid treatment could be detected with regard to the patients' condition at discharge (P = 0.0634). More patients with steroids had a good recovery (49.2% vs 40.7%), and fewer died (16.0% vs 21.5%). Differences in outcome were even more pronounced (P < 0.0145) in patients with a focal lesion and a Glasgow Coma Score on admission of < 8 (n = 93). In this group, 34.8% of the patients made a good recovery, as against 21.3% of the placebo group; mortality was also lower in the verum group (19.6% vs 38.3%). The results indicate that a major subgroup of patients with severe head injury benefits from early administration of triamcinolone. Efficacy of the treatment can be expected, in particular, in patients with a focal cerebral lesion and a Glasgow Coma Score of < 8 on admission. Administration of steroids beginning at the scene of an accident would therefore be beneficial in these cases.

This double-blind, placebo-controlled study assessed the efficacy of 3 weeks of impulse magnetic-field therapy for erectile dysfunction (ED). Twenty volunteers who suffered from ED or orgasmic disturbances were randomly assigned to either active treatment or placebo (n = 10 each). Efficacy was assessed in terms of intensity and duration of erection, general well-being, sexual activity, and warm sensation in the genital area. In the active-treatment group, all efficacy endpoints were significantly improved at study end (P < or = .01), with 80% reporting increases in intensity and duration of erection, frequency of genital warmth, and general well-being. The remaining 20%, who experienced minor improvements, were found to have an influenza-like infection after the study that may have influenced their results. Only 30% of the placebo group noted some improvement in their sexual activity; 70% had no change. No side effects were reported.

This double-blind, placebo-controlled study assessed the efficacy of 4 weeks of impulse magnetic-field therapy (16 Hz, 5 microTs), delivered through a small device, for different types of headache and migraine. Eighty-two patients were randomly assigned to receive either active treatment or placebo (n = 41 each) and were characterized according to one of seven diagnoses (migraine, migraine combined with tension, tension, cluster, weather-related, posttraumatic, or other). Efficacy was assessed in terms of duration, severity, and frequency of migraine and headache attacks, as well as ability to concentrate. Data for 77 patients were analyzed. In the active-treatment group, all assessed criteria were significantly improved at the end of the study (P < .0001 vs baseline and placebo). Seventy-six percent of active-treatment patients experienced clear or very clear relief of their complaints. Only 1 placebo-patient (2.5%) felt some relief; 8% noted slight and 2% reported significant worsening of symptoms. No side effects were noted.