Technical Report

Face masks, lies, damn lies, and public health officials: "A growing body of evidence"

To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the author.


A vile new mantra is on the lips of every public health official and politician in the global campaign to force universal masking on the general public: “there is a growing body of evidence”. This propagandistic phrase is a vector designed to achieve five main goals: - Give the false impression that a balance of evidence now proves that masks reduce the transmission of COVID-19 - Falsely assimilate commentary made in scientific venues with “evidence” - Hide the fact that a decade’s worth of policy-grade evidence proves the opposite: that masks are ineffective with viral respiratory diseases - Hide the fact that there is now direct observational proof that cloth masks do not prevent exhalation of clouds of suspended aerosol particles; above, below and through the masks - Deter attention away from the considerable known harms and risks due to face masks, applied to entire populations The said harms and risks include that a cloth mask becomes a culture medium for a large variety of bacterial pathogens, and a collector of viral pathogens; given the hot and humid environment and the constant source, where home fabrics are hydrophilic whereas medical masks are hydrophobic. In short, I argue: op-eds are not “evidence”, irrelevance does not help, and more bias does not remove bias. Their mantra of “a growing body of evidence” is a self-serving contrivance that impedes good science and threatens public safety. I prove that there is no policy-grade evidence to support forced masking on the general population, and that all the latest-decade’s policy-grade evidence points to the opposite: NOT recommending forced masking of the general population. Therefore, the politicians and health authorities are acting without legitimacy and recklessly.

No full-text available

Request Full-text Paper PDF

To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.

... This could be because COVID-19 is a new infectious disease in Africa. This poor knowledge would cause rapid spread of the disease, nosocomial contamination, and exposing the lives of several patients [1]. In addition, this misunderstanding would contribute to the spread of the virus to uninfected patients who seek an assessment [6,7,12]. ...
Full-text available
Background: During its first wave of COVID-19 infection in sub-Saharan Africa, there was insufficient understanding of the pandemic among front-line health care professionals that has led to a misidentification, and mistreatment of affected patients, with a potential risk of contracting and spreading the disease. This study was carried out to determine the Knowledge, attitude, and practices (KAP) of front-line health workers (HWs) towards COVID-19 in Africa and their related factors. Methods: This was a multi-centers online cross-sectional study conducted over a 3-months study-period using a google survey link among front lines HWs involved in the COVID-19 response in 26 African countries. Chi-square test & logistic regression were used in the bivariate and multivariate analysis respectively to assess determinants of KAP. Statistical analysis was done using STATA version 16; all tests were two-sided with 95% confidence interval. Results: Five hundred and seventeen (517, 96.3%) consented to participate in this study from 26 African countries; 289 (55.9%) were male and 228 (44.1%) female. Overall, most of HWs, 379 (73.3%) showed poor knowledge about COVID-19 infection and preventive measures. In contrast, majority of them showed good attitude (89%) and practice (90.3%) towards prevention of COVID-19 infections. Knowledge varied among countries; Uganda had the greatest number of HWs with good knowledge. (OR = 28.09, p <0.0001) followed by Ghana (OR=10.92, p=0.001) and DRC (OR: 4.59, p=0.015). The cadre of HWs also influenced knowledge; doctors were the most knowledgeable as compared to other cadres (OR: 3.4, p= 0.005). Additionally, knowledge increased with increasing HWs’ education level (p=0.011). Attitude and practice were both influenced by HWs country of workplace (p=0.05 & p< 0.0001 respectively) and their cadre (p = 0.025 & p < 0.0001 respectively). Conclusions: Majority of the front-line HWs in the African region had an overall good attitude and practice towards COVID-19 infection and practice measures despite relatively poor Knowledge. The KAP is influenced by HWs country of workplace, their cadre and level of education.
Welcome to Closing Statements of The Great VIRAL Debate. Track this debate’s progress in our Coronavirus Debate Section. Dr Piers Robinson is our chair. Off-Guardian is your host. -- The mechanism that made care homes and institutions for sick and elderly persons into killing fields includes the following elements: * infection seeding by hospital transfers into the care homes * universal lockdowns of the care homes * denied specialized medical treatment to the residents of the care homes * reduced staffing and staff abandonment in the care homes, and negligence * collateral effects of the universal lockdown of the care homes: extreme social isolation, psychological stress, reduced aerosol-exhaust ventilation, lost oversight of the institutions by family-members
Full-text available
Objective: To determine the effect of mask use on viral respiratory infection risk. Data sources: MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library. Study selection: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) included in at least 1 published systematic review comparing the use of masks with a control group, either in community or health care settings, on the risk of viral respiratory infections. Synthesis: In total, 11 systematic reviews were included and 18 RCTs of 26 444 participants were found, 12 in the community and 6 in health care workers. Included studies had limitations and were deemed at high risk of bias. Overall, the use of masks in the community did not reduce the risk of influenza, confirmed viral respiratory infection, influenzalike illness, or any clinical respiratory infection. However, in the 2 trials that most closely aligned with mask use in real-life community settings, there was a significant risk reduction in influenzalike illness (risk ratio [RR] = 0.83; 95% CI 0.69 to 0.99). The use of masks in households with a sick contact was not associated with a significant infection risk reduction in any analysis, no matter if masks were used by the sick individual, the healthy family members, or both. In health care workers, surgical masks were superior to cloth masks for preventing influenzalike illness (RR = 0.12; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.98), and N95 masks were likely superior to surgical masks for preventing influenzalike illness (RR = 0.78; 95% CI 0.61 to 1.00) and any clinical respiratory infections (RR = 0.95; 95% CI 0.90 to 1.00). Conclusion: This systematic review found limited evidence that the use of masks might reduce the risk of viral respiratory infections. In the community setting, a possible reduced risk of influenzalike illness was found among mask users. In health care workers, the results show no difference between N95 masks and surgical masks on the risk of confirmed influenza or other confirmed viral respiratory infections, although possible benefits from N95 masks were found for preventing influenzalike illness or other clinical respiratory infections. Surgical masks might be superior to cloth masks but data are limited to 1 trial.
Full-text available
The use of face masks in public settings has been widely recommended by public health officials during the current COVID-19 pandemic. The masks help mitigate the risk of cross-infection via respiratory droplets, however, there are no specific guidelines on mask materials and designs that are most effective in minimizing droplet dispersal. While there have been prior studies on the performance of medical-grade masks, there is insufficient data on cloth-based coverings which are being used by a vast majority of the general public. We use qualitative visualizations of emulated coughs and sneezes to examine how material- and design-choices impact the extent to which droplet-laden respiratory jets are blocked. Loosely folded face masks and bandana-style coverings provide minimal stopping-capability for the smallest aerosolized respiratory droplets. Well-fitted homemade masks with multiple layers of quilting fabric, and off-the-shelf cone style masks, proved to be the most effective in reducing droplet dispersal. These masks were able to curtail the speed and range of the respiratory jets significantly, albeit with some leakage through the mask material and from small gaps along the edges. Importantly, uncovered emulated coughs were able to travel noticeably farther than the currently recommended 6-foot distancing guideline. We outline the procedure for setting up simple visualization experiments using easily available materials, which may help healthcare professionals, medical researchers, and manufacturers in assessing the effectiveness of face masks and other personal protective equipment qualitatively.
Full-text available
Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes COVID-19 and is spread person-to-person through close contact. We aimed to investigate the effects of physical distance, face masks, and eye protection on virus transmission in health-care and non-health-care (eg, community) settings. Methods We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the optimum distance for avoiding person-to-person virus transmission and to assess the use of face masks and eye protection to prevent transmission of viruses. We obtained data for SARS-CoV-2 and the betacoronaviruses that cause severe acute respiratory syndrome, and Middle East respiratory syndrome from 21 standard WHO-specific and COVID-19-specific sources. We searched these data sources from database inception to May 3, 2020, with no restriction by language, for comparative studies and for contextual factors of acceptability, feasibility, resource use, and equity. We screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in duplicate. We did frequentist and Bayesian meta-analyses and random-effects meta-regressions. We rated the certainty of evidence according to Cochrane methods and the GRADE approach. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020177047. Findings Our search identified 172 observational studies across 16 countries and six continents, with no randomised controlled trials and 44 relevant comparative studies in health-care and non-health-care settings (n=25 697 patients). Transmission of viruses was lower with physical distancing of 1 m or more, compared with a distance of less than 1 m (n=10 736, pooled adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0·18, 95% CI 0·09 to 0·38; risk difference [RD] −10·2%, 95% CI −11·5 to −7·5; moderate certainty); protection was increased as distance was lengthened (change in relative risk [RR] 2·02 per m; pinteraction=0·041; moderate certainty). Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection (n=2647; aOR 0·15, 95% CI 0·07 to 0·34, RD −14·3%, −15·9 to −10·7; low certainty), with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks or similar (eg, reusable 12–16-layer cotton masks; pinteraction=0·090; posterior probability >95%, low certainty). Eye protection also was associated with less infection (n=3713; aOR 0·22, 95% CI 0·12 to 0·39, RD −10·6%, 95% CI −12·5 to −7·7; low certainty). Unadjusted studies and subgroup and sensitivity analyses showed similar findings. Interpretation The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis support physical distancing of 1 m or more and provide quantitative estimates for models and contact tracing to inform policy. Optimum use of face masks, respirators, and eye protection in public and health-care settings should be informed by these findings and contextual factors. Robust randomised trials are needed to better inform the evidence for these interventions, but this systematic appraisal of currently best available evidence might inform interim guidance. Funding World Health Organization.
Full-text available
There were 3 influenza pandemics in the 20th century, and there has been 1 so far in the 21st century. Local, national, and international health authorities regularly update their plans for mitigating the next influenza pandemic in light of the latest available evidence on the effectiveness of various control measures in reducing transmission. Here, we review the evidence base on the effectiveness of nonpharmaceutical personal protective measures and environmental hygiene measures in nonhealthcare settings and discuss their potential inclusion in pandemic plans. Although mechanistic studies support the potential effect of hand hygiene or face masks, evidence from 14 randomized controlled trials of these measures did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza. We similarly found limited evidence on the effectiveness of improved hygiene and environmental cleaning. We identified several major knowledge gaps requiring further research, most fundamentally an improved characterization of the modes of person-to-person transmission.
Full-text available
Background The pandemic of COVID-19 is growing, and a shortage of masks and respirators has been reported globally. Policies of health organizations for healthcare workers are inconsistent, with a change in policy in the US for universal face mask use. The aim of this study was to review the evidence around the efficacy of masks and respirators for healthcare workers, sick patients and the general public. Methods A systematic review of randomized controlled clinical trials on use of respiratory protection by healthcare workers, sick patients and community members was conducted. Articles were searched on Medline and Embase using key search terms. Results A total of 19 randomised controlled trials were included in this study – 8 in community settings, 6 in healthcare settings and 5 as source control. Most of these randomised controlled trials used different interventions and outcome measures. In the community, masks appeared to be more effective than hand hygiene alone, and both together are more protective. Randomised controlled trials in health care workers showed that respirators, if worn continually during a shift, were effective but not if worn intermittently. Medical masks were not effective, and cloth masks even less effective. When used by sick patients randomised controlled trials suggested protection of well contacts. Conclusion The study suggests that community mask use by well people could be beneficial, particularly for COVID-19, where transmission may be pre-symptomatic. The studies of masks as source control also suggest a benefit, and may be important during the COVID-19 pandemic in universal community face mask use as well as in health care settings. Trials in healthcare workers support the use of respirators continuously during a shift. This may prevent health worker infections and deaths from COVID-19, as aerosolisation in the hospital setting has been documented.
Full-text available
Systematic reviews should build on a protocol that describes the rationale, hypothesis, and planned methods of the review; few reviews report whether a protocol exists. Detailed, well-described protocols can facilitate the understanding and appraisal of the review methods, as well as the detection of modifications to methods and selective reporting in completed reviews. We describe the development of a reporting guideline, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols 2015 (PRISMA-P 2015). PRISMA-P consists of a 17-item checklist intended to facilitate the preparation and reporting of a robust protocol for the systematic review. Funders and those commissioning reviews might consider mandating the use of the checklist to facilitate the submission of relevant protocol information in funding applications. Similarly, peer reviewers and editors can use the guidance to gauge the completeness and transparency of a systematic review protocol submitted for publication in a journal or other medium.
Full-text available
Thresholds for statistical significance when assessing meta-analysis results are being insufficiently demonstrated by traditional 95% confidence intervals and P-values. Assessment of intervention effects in systematic reviews with meta-analysis deserves greater rigour. Methodologies for assessing statistical and clinical significance of intervention effects in systematic reviews were considered. Balancing simplicity and comprehensiveness, an operational procedure was developed, based mainly on The Cochrane Collaboration methodology and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) guidelines. We propose an eight-step procedure for better validation of meta-analytic results in systematic reviews (1) Obtain the 95% confidence intervals and the P-values from both fixed-effect and random-effects meta-analyses and report the most conservative results as the main results. (2) Explore the reasons behind substantial statistical heterogeneity using sensitivity analyses. (3) To take account of problems with multiplicity adjust the thresholds for significance according to the number of primary outcomes. (4) Calculate required information sizes ([almost equal to] the a priori required number of participants for a meta-analysis to be conclusive) for all outcomes and analyse each outcome with trial sequential analysis. Report whether the trial sequential monitoring boundaries for benefit, harm, or futility are crossed. (5) Calculate Bayes factors for all primary outcomes. (6) Use subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses to assess the potential impact of bias on the review results. (7) Assess the risk of publication bias. (8) Assess the clinical significance of the statistically significant review results. If followed, the proposed eight-step procedure will increase the validity of assessments of intervention effects in systematic reviews of randomised clinical trials.
Full-text available
Despite widespread public belief that psychological stress leads to disease, the biomedical community remains skeptical of this conclusion. In this Commentary, we discuss the plausibility of the belief that stress contributes to a variety of disease processes and summarize the role of stress in 4 major diseases: clinical depression, cardiovascular disease (CVD), human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)/AIDS, and cancer.Corresponding Author: Sheldon Cohen, PhD, Department of Psychology, Carnegie Mellon University, 5000 Forbes Ave, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 ( Disclosures: Dr Cohen reported consulting for Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies Inc on issues of stress measurement. None of the other authors reported any financial disclosures.Role of the Sponsor: This article is based on a paper commissioned by the Institute of Medicine Committee on Psychosocial Services to Cancer Patients and Families in Community Settings. The Institute of Medicine suggested the topic but played no role in structuring the paper; in the collection, management, and interpretation of the data; or the preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript.Additional Contributions: We thank David Krantz, PhD (Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences), Margaret Kemeny, PhD (School of Medicine, University of California at San Francisco), Stephen Manuck, PhD, and Karen Matthews, PhD (University of Pittsburgh), and Scott Monroe, PhD (Notre Dame University), for their comments on an earlier draft; the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Network on Socioeconomic Status and Health and members of the Pittsburgh Mind-Body Center (HL65111, HL65112) for their intellectual support; and Ellen Conser, MA, Ashleigh Molz, and Wesley Barnhart, BS (Carnegie Mellon University), for assistance in preparing the manuscript. None of these individuals received any extra compensation for their contributions.
Amid the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic, substantial effort is being directed toward mining databases and publishing case series and reports that may provide insights into the epidemiology and clinical management of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, there is growing concern about whether attempts to infer causation about the benefits and risks of potential therapeutics from nonrandomized studies are providing insights that improve clinical knowledge and accelerate the search for needed answers, or whether these reports just add noise, confusion, and false confidence. Most of these studies include a caveat indicating that “randomized clinical trials are needed.” But disclaimers aside, does this approach help make the case for well-designed randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and accelerate their delivery?¹ Or do observational studies reduce the likelihood of a properly designed trial being performed, thereby delaying the discovery of reliable truth?
We address the question of: 'how many deaths in England and Wales are due to COVID-19?' There are two approaches to measuring COVID deaths - 'COVID associated deaths' and 'excess deaths'. An excess deaths type framework is preferable, as there is substantial measurement error in COVID associated deaths, due to issues relating to the identification of deaths that are directly attributable to COVID-19. A limitation of the current excess deaths metric (a comparison of deaths to a 5 year average for the same week), is that it attributes the entirety of the variation in mortality to COVID-19. This likely means that the metric is overstated because there are a range of other drivers of mortality. We address this by estimating novel empirical Poisson models for all-cause deaths (in totality; by age category; for males; and females) that account for other drivers including the lockdown Government policy response. The models are novel because they include COVID identifier variables (which are a variation on a dummy variable). We use these identifiers to estimate weekly deviations in COVID deaths (about the mean weekly estimate pertaining to the COVID dummy variable in our baseline model). Results from two sets of identifiers indicate that, over the periods when our weekly estimates of total COVID deaths and the current excess deaths measure differ (week ending 17th or 24th April 2020 - week ending 8th May 2020), the former is considerably below the latter - on average per week 4670 deaths (54%) lower, or 4727 deaths (63%) lower, respectively.
Technical Report
The latest data of all-cause mortality by week does not show a winter-burden mortality that is statistically larger than for past winters. There was no plague. However, a sharp "COVID peak" is present in the data, for several jurisdictions in Europe and the USA. This all-cause-mortality "COVID peak" has unique characteristics: • Its sharpness, with a full-width at half-maximum of only approximately 4 weeks; • Its lateness in the infectious-season cycle, surging after week-11 of 2020, which is unprecedented for any large sharp-peak feature; • The synchronicity of the onset of its surge, across continents, and immediately following the WHO declaration of the pandemic; and • Its USA state-to-state absence or presence for the same viral ecology on the same territory, being correlated with nursing home events and government actions rather than any known viral strain discernment. These "COVID peak" characteristics, and a review of the epidemiological history, and of relevant knowledge about viral respiratory diseases, lead me to postulate that the "COVID peak" results from an accelerated mass homicide of immune-vulnerable individuals, and individuals made more immune-vulnerable, by government and institutional actions, rather than being an epidemiological signature of a novel virus, irrespective of the degree to which the virus is novel from the perspective of viral speciation.
Background Conflicting recommendations exist related to whether masks have a protective effect on the spread of respiratory viruses. Methods The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement was consulted to report this systematic review. Relevant articles were retrieved from PubMed, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library, and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), VIP (Chinese) database. Results A total of 21 studies met our inclusion criteria. Meta-analyses suggest that mask use provided a significant protective effect (OR = 0.35 and 95% CI = 0.24–0.51). Use of masks by healthcare workers (HCWs) and non-healthcare workers (Non-HCWs) can reduce the risk of respiratory virus infection by 80% (OR = 0.20, 95% CI = 0.11–0.37) and 47% (OR = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.36–0.79). The protective effect of wearing masks in Asia (OR = 0.31) appeared to be higher than that of Western countries (OR = 0.45). Masks had a protective effect against influenza viruses (OR = 0.55), SARS (OR = 0.26), and SARS-CoV-2 (OR = 0.04). In the subgroups based on different study designs, protective effects of wearing mask were significant in cluster randomized trials and observational studies. Conclusions This study adds additional evidence of the enhanced protective value of masks, we stress that the use masks serve as an adjunctive method regarding the COVID-19 outbreak.
Objective: To examine the hypothesis that diverse ties to friends, family, work, and community are associated with increased host resistance to infection. Design: After reporting the extent of participation in 12 types of social ties (eg, spouse, parent, friend, workmate, member of social group), subjects were given nasal drops containing 1 of 2 rhinoviruses and monitored for the development of a common cold. Setting: Quarantine. Participants: A total of 276 healthy volunteers, aged 18 to 55 years, neither seropositive for human immunodeficiency virus nor pregnant. Outcome measures: Colds (illness in the presence of a verified infection), mucus production, mucociliary clearance function, and amount of viral replication. Results: In response to both viruses, those with more types of social ties were less susceptible to common colds, produced less mucus, were more effective in ciliary clearance of their nasal passages, and shed less virus. These relationships were unaltered by statistical controls for prechallenge virus-specific antibody, virus type, age, sex, season, body mass index, education, and race. Susceptibility to colds decreased in a dose-response manner with increased diversity of the social network. There was an adjusted relative risk of 4.2 comparing persons with fewest (1 to 3) to those with most (6 or more) types of social ties. Although smoking, poor sleep quality, alcohol abstinence, low dietary intake of vitamin C, elevated catecholamine levels, and being introverted were all associated with greater susceptibility to colds, they could only partially account for the relation between social network diversity and incidence of colds. Conclusions: More diverse social networks were associated with greater resistance to upper respiratory illness.
This article discusses the history and development of randomized clinical trial methodology, the reasons for its status and authority as a method of therapeutic evaluation, and the continuing role of clinical judgement in designing, interpreting, and applying the findings of trials.
RE: WHO advising the use of masks in the general population to prevent COVID-19 transmission
  • J Hickey
  • Rancourt Dg
June 2020 letter to the Executive Director of the WHO. "RE: WHO advising the use of masks in the general population to prevent COVID-19 transmission", Hickey, J and Rancourt DG, Ontario Civil Liberties Association.
Advice on the use of masks in the context of COVID-19: Interim guidance
June 2020 "Advice on the use of masks in the context of COVID-19: Interim guidance", WHO Reference Number: WHO/2019-nCov/IPC_Masks/2020.4
Psychological Stress and Susceptibility to the Common Cold
  • S Cohen
"Psychological Stress and Susceptibility to the Common Cold", by Cohen, S et al., The New England Journal of Medicine. 1991; 325:606-612. DOI: 10.1056/NEJM199108293250903
A letter signed by hundreds of doctors warning of adverse health consequences stemming from the coronavirus shutdowns
Letter dated 19 May 2020: more than 500 USA physicians wrote to President Trump that "In medical terms, the shutdown was a mass casualty incident." "A letter signed by hundreds of doctors warning of adverse health consequences stemming from the coronavirus shutdowns." Scribd (uploaded by Fox News as "A Doctor a Day Letter -Signed")
By National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
Pandemic" (8 April, 2020). By National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
SYNOPSIS 06/17/2020 COVID-19 -What We Know So Far About
"SYNOPSIS 06/17/2020 COVID-19 -What We Know So Far About...Wearing Masks in Public", Public Health Ontario (PHO), 17 June 2020.
RE: Mandatory face mask policies have no scientific basis, violate civil liberties, and must be rejected
  • City
  • Ottawa
City of Ottawa mayor's 27 July 2020 answer to OCLA. "RE: Mandatory face mask policies have no scientific basis, violate civil liberties, and must be rejected". And see all the response letters at:
The Necessity of Randomized Clinical Trials
"The Necessity of Randomized Clinical Trials", by Jakobsen and Gluud, in the British Journal of Medicine & Medical Research. 3(4): 1453-1468, 2013.
District Health Unit (Ontario, Canada) webpage entitled "FAQ's-Wearing a Face Covering in Indoor Public Spaces
  • Simcoe-Muskoka
Simcoe-Muskoka District Health Unit (Ontario, Canada) webpage entitled "FAQ's-Wearing a Face Covering in Indoor Public Spaces", updated 24 July 2020. Downloaded from on 28 July 2020
Development and Evaluations] from the webpage "Evidence based medicine (EBM) toolkit » Learn EBM » What is GRADE?", at the website
GRADE [Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations] from the webpage "Evidence based medicine (EBM) toolkit » Learn EBM » What is GRADE?", at the website "BMJ Best Practice"., accessed on 28 July 2020.
GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence-imprecision
  • By Guyatta
"GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence-imprecision", by Guyatta et al., Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 64 (2011) 1283e1293