Format

Send to

Choose Destination
BMJ Open. 2017 Feb 23;7(2):e012680. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012680.

Electronic nicotine delivery systems and/or electronic non-nicotine delivery systems for tobacco smoking cessation or reduction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Author information

1
Department of Anaesthesiology, Botucatu Medical School, UNESP-Univ Estadual Paulista, São Paulo, Brazil.
2
McMaster Institute of Urology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
3
Institute of Science and Technology, Department of Biosciences and Oral Diagnosis, Unesp-Univ Estadual Paulista, São José dos Campos, Brazil.
4
Research Institute-Hospital do Coração (HCor), São Paulo, Brazil.
5
Department of Internal Medicine, Clinical Research Institute (CRI), Center for Systematic Reviews in Health Policy and Systems Research (SPARK), American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.
6
Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
7
Department of Pharmacy, Tanta Chest Hospital, Tanta, Egypt.
8
Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
9
Department of Community Medicine, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Rohtak, Haryana, India.
10
Isfahan Medical Education Research Centre, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
11
Department of Epidemiology, Robert Stempel College of Public Health and Social Work, Florida International University, Miami, Florida, USA.
12
Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

A systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the impact of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) and/or electronic non-nicotine delivery systems (ENNDS) versus no smoking cessation aid, or alternative smoking cessation aids, in cigarette smokers on long-term tobacco use.

DATA SOURCES:

Searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo, CINAHL, CENTRAL and Web of Science up to December 2015.

STUDY SELECTION:

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective cohort studies.

DATA EXTRACTION:

Three pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles, extracted data from included studies on populations, interventions and outcomes and assessed their risk of bias. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to rate overall certainty of the evidence by outcome.

DATA SYNTHESIS:

Three randomised trials including 1007 participants and nine cohorts including 13 115 participants proved eligible. Results provided by only two RCTs suggest a possible increase in tobacco smoking cessation with ENDS in comparison with ENNDS (RR 2.03, 95% CI 0.94 to 4.38; p=0.07; I2=0%, risk difference (RD) 64/1000 over 6 to 12 months, low-certainty evidence). Results from cohort studies suggested a possible reduction in quit rates with use of ENDS compared with no use of ENDS (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.00; p=0.051; I2=56%, very low certainty).

CONCLUSIONS:

There is very limited evidence regarding the impact of ENDS or ENNDS on tobacco smoking cessation, reduction or adverse effects: data from RCTs are of low certainty and observational studies of very low certainty. The limitations of the cohort studies led us to a rating of very low-certainty evidence from which no credible inferences can be drawn. Lack of usefulness with regard to address the question of e-cigarettes' efficacy on smoking reduction and cessation was largely due to poor reporting. This review underlines the need to conduct well-designed trials measuring biochemically validated outcomes and adverse effects.

KEYWORDS:

ENDS; GRADE; electronic cigarettes; smoking cessation; systematic review

PMID:
28235965
PMCID:
PMC5337697
DOI:
10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012680
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for HighWire Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center