[TigersEye]

Here is the criteria for that study.

Selection criteria

In this update, two review authors independently applied the inclusion criteria to all identified and retrieved articles and extracted data. We scanned 3775 titles, excluded 3560 and retrieved full papers of 215 studies, to include 66 papers of 67 studies. We included physical interventions (screening at entry ports, isolation, quarantine, social distancing, barriers, personal protection, hand hygiene) to prevent respiratory virus transmission. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cohorts, case‐controls, before‐after and time series studies.

Nowhere in that study did they isolate masks and address their effectiveness as a stand alone measure. Their conclusions were based on all of the criteria cited above.

Go sell your careless reading skills somewhere else.

[TigersEye]

Here is what the N-95 is worth ... according to an RCT. (randomized controlled trial)

Masks Don't Work: A Review of Science Relevant to COVID-19 Social Policy

Here are key anchor points to the extensive scientific literature that establishes that wearing surgical masks and respirators (e.g., "N95") does not reduce the risk of contracting a verified illness:

Jacobs, J. L. et al. (2009) "Use of surgical face masks to reduce the incidence of the common cold among health care workers in Japan: A randomized controlled trial", American Journal of Infection Control, Volume 37, Issue 5, 417 - 419. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19216002

N95-masked health-care workers (HCW) were significantly more likely to experience headaches. Face mask use in HCW was not demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds.

Seven more RCT studies at the link.

[palmer]

You should still address their crtique of Jacobs. Only 33 subjects and some issues measuring URTI.