-
Substance Use & Misuse 2015Research supports an association between smoking and negative affect. Loneliness is a negative affective state experienced when a person perceives themselves as socially... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Research supports an association between smoking and negative affect. Loneliness is a negative affective state experienced when a person perceives themselves as socially isolated and is associated with poor health behaviors and increased morbidity and early mortality.
OBJECTIVES
In this article, we systematically review the literature on loneliness and smoking and suggest potential theoretical and methodological implications.
METHODS
PubMed and PsycINFO were systematically searched for articles that assessed the statistical association between loneliness and smoking. Articles that met study inclusion criteria were reviewed.
RESULTS
Twenty-five studies met inclusion criteria. Ten studies were conducted with nationally representative samples. Twelve studies assessed loneliness using a version of the UCLA Loneliness Scale and nine used a one-item measure of loneliness. Seventeen studies assessed smoking with a binary smoking status variable. Fourteen of the studies were conducted with adults and 11 with adolescents. Half of the reviewed studies reported a statistically significant association between loneliness and smoking. Of the studies with significant results, all but one study found that higher loneliness scores were associated with being a smoker.
CONCLUSIONS/IMPORTANCE
Loneliness and smoking are likely associated, however, half of the studies reviewed did not report significant associations. Studies conducted with larger sample sizes, such as those that used nationally representative samples, were more likely to have statistically significant findings. Future studies should focus on using large, longitudinal cohorts, using measures that capture different aspects of loneliness and smoking, and exploring mediators and moderators of the association between loneliness and smoking.
Topics: Affect; Female; Health Behavior; Humans; Loneliness; Male; Sex Factors; Smoking; Social Isolation
PubMed: 26555089
DOI: 10.3109/10826084.2015.1027933 -
Nicotine & Tobacco Research : Official... Sep 2014To determine the association between chronic tobacco cigarette smoking and P300 amplitude. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To determine the association between chronic tobacco cigarette smoking and P300 amplitude.
DESIGN
Systematic review with meta-analysis and meta-regression.
DATA SOURCES
Medline, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PsychInfo, and Web of Science.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES
Eligible studies contained P300 amplitudes obtained from either visual or auditory stimuli and standard deviations or errors in female and male subjects older than 18 years in a group of nonabstaining chronic cigarette smokers and a nonsmoking control group.
RESULTS
The 9 eligible studies comprised 13 relevant datasets containing 1,956 current cigarette smokers and 2,194 nonsmoking controls (N = 4,150). The P300 amplitude was smaller in cigarette smokers than in nonsmoking controls (Hedges' g effect size = .365; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.196-0.534, p < .001). Meta-regression showed significant positive associations between the number of cigarettes smoked per day at the time of the study (slope estimate = .036, 95% CI = 0.016-0.056, p ≤ .001, length of smoking in years (slope estimate = .056, 95% CI = 0.005-0.102, p = .018), pack years (slope estimate = .018, 95% CI = 0.009-0.031 p = .009), and age (slope estimate = .068, 95% CI = 0.025-0.113, p = .002).
CONCLUSIONS
P300 amplitude was smaller in cigarette smokers than in nonsmoking controls, and a possible dose-response relationship was apparent. Findings indicate a possible association between cigarette smoking and decreased P300 amplitude.
Topics: Adult; Age Factors; Event-Related Potentials, P300; Female; Humans; Male; Sex Factors; Smoking; Time Factors; Young Adult
PubMed: 24847100
DOI: 10.1093/ntr/ntu083 -
Public Health May 2023COVID-19 and the implementation of lockdowns have impacted daily lives worldwide. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the impact of lockdowns... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
COVID-19 and the implementation of lockdowns have impacted daily lives worldwide. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the impact of lockdowns on the smoking and vaping behaviours of adults during the pandemic.
STUDY DESIGN
This was a systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was conducted up to 28 April 2022 in the following databases: PubMed, Embase and Web of Science.
RESULTS
In total, 77 studies met the inclusion criteria for this review. In 34 studies, an increase in smoking behaviour was reported for the majority of participants; however, in 21 and 18 studies, 'no change' and 'decrease' in smoking were the predominant responses, respectively. The results from the meta-analysis, which examined the change in the number of cigarettes smoked per day, showed no difference between the pre- and post-lockdown periods: 0.81 weighted mean difference (95% confidence interval, -0.59 to 2.21). Regarding vaping, three of seven studies reported an increase in smoking for the majority of participants, whereas 'no change' and 'decrease' were the predominant answers in the other four studies.
CONCLUSIONS
The results show that lockdowns led most participants to increase smoking/vaping, whereas a decrease or cessation of smoking/vaping was only reported in the minority of participants. Attention should be given to the non-communicable diseases that could arise as a result of the increase in smoking/vaping during lockdowns, and further research in this area is needed.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Vaping; Smoking Cessation; COVID-19; Communicable Disease Control; Smoking; Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems
PubMed: 37043948
DOI: 10.1016/j.puhe.2023.02.007 -
Nicotine & Tobacco Research : Official... Aug 2021Smoking in pregnancy increases the risk of negative health outcomes. Vaping can be effective for smoking cessation in nonpregnant populations. We conducted a systematic...
INTRODUCTION
Smoking in pregnancy increases the risk of negative health outcomes. Vaping can be effective for smoking cessation in nonpregnant populations. We conducted a systematic review of vaping in pregnancy, covering prevalence, patterns of use, reasons for use, smoking cessation, and health effects.
METHODS
Five academic databases were searched on 17 February 2020. Studies reporting prevalence, patterns, reasons, cessation, or health effects of vaping in pregnancy were included; animal and in vitro studies were excluded. A narrative review was used, with risk of bias assessed using Hoy and colleague's tool, the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, and the Consolidated Criteria for reporting Qualitative Research.
RESULTS
Twenty-three studies were identified: 11 survey, 7 qualitative, 3 cohort, and 2 secondary analyses of randomized clinical trials. Prevalence of vaping in pregnancy (four studies) was between 1.2% and 7.0% overall, and <1% among nonsmokers. Twelve studies reported patterns of use, but findings were inconsistent. Twelve of 14 studies asking why pregnant women vaped reported that most vaped to reduce or quit smoking. Mixed findings were reported from six studies on smoking cessation. Of three studies with health-related outcomes, two were underpowered and one reported similar birthweights for babies born to nonsmokers and women who vaped, with both higher (p < .0001) than the birthweight of babies born to smokers.
CONCLUSIONS
There were insufficient data to draw conclusions about prevalence, patterns, and effects of vaping in pregnancy on smoking cessation. The limited literature suggests that vaping in pregnancy has little or no effect on birthweight.
IMPLICATIONS
Smoking causes many negative health outcomes for pregnant women and to babies born to people who smoke. There remains a paucity of research on the effects of vaping in pregnancy. There is, however, the potential for vaping products to reduce the negative health outcomes associated with smoking. More research is needed to develop an evidence base in this area.
Topics: Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems; Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Smokers; Smoking; Smoking Cessation; Tobacco Smoking; Vaping
PubMed: 33538828
DOI: 10.1093/ntr/ntab017 -
The Laryngoscope Jun 2024Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is a prevalent inflammatory disease of the upper airway. The impact of smoking on CRS has not been clearly established. We aim to clarify... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is a prevalent inflammatory disease of the upper airway. The impact of smoking on CRS has not been clearly established. We aim to clarify the association between first-hand cigarette smoking and the prevalence and prognoses of CRS.
REVIEW METHODS
PubMed, Embase, SCOPUS, and Cochrane Library were searched from inception until May 15, 2022. Three blinded reviewers selected relevant studies, extracted data, and evaluated study bias following a PROSPERO-registered protocol (CRD42022345585). We used random-effects meta-analyses to pool the prevalence of smoking in CRS, association between smoking status and CRS, and association of smoking with quality of life (QOL) before and after functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS). We also performed descriptive analyses of olfactory function, CT scores, and endoscopy scores before and after FESS.
RESULTS
We included 23 cross-sectional studies, 19 cohort studies, two case-control studies, and one prospective clinical trial. The pooled prevalence of ever-smokers was 40% (95% CI = 0.30-0.51) and 33% (95% CI = 0.25-0.43) in patients with and without CRS. Compared to never-smokers, active smokers and past smokers had 1.35 (95% CI = 1.18-1.55) and 1.23 (95% CI = 1.17-1.29) higher odds of having CRS. Among patients with CRS, non-smokers reported higher initial QOL than smokers (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.23, 95% CI = 0.11-0.35), although post-FESS QOL was similar (SMD = 0.10, 95% CI = -0.30-0.51). Descriptive analysis found no significant correlations between smoking and post-FESS olfactory function and endoscopy scores.
CONCLUSIONS
Cigarette smoking is associated with higher prevalence and odds of CRS. Clinicians should be aware that smoking predisposes to CRS, but does not negatively impact the rhinologic outcomes of FESS. Laryngoscope, 134:2513-2524, 2024.
Topics: Humans; Sinusitis; Rhinitis; Chronic Disease; Quality of Life; Prevalence; Smoking; Endoscopy; Prognosis; Rhinosinusitis
PubMed: 38112394
DOI: 10.1002/lary.31223 -
The Journal of Evidence-based Dental... Sep 2022This systematic review and meta-analysis sought to determine if there was a significantly enhanced risk of peri‑implant marginal bone loss (MBL) due to the increased... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
This systematic review and meta-analysis sought to determine if there was a significantly enhanced risk of peri‑implant marginal bone loss (MBL) due to the increased number of cigarettes smoked per day.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Six databases, including Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, and ProQuest, were searched until February, 2021. The search terms "dental implant, oral implant, smoking, smoker, non-smoker, marginal bone loss and crestal bone loss" were used in combination to seek the articles providing data for MBL related to the smoking habit. Articles were excluded if the quantity of cigarettes smoked per day was not reported. Random-effects meta-analyses were used to pool the estimates of mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
RESULTS
Eight studies were included for qualitative and 5 for quantitative synthesis. The meta-analyses revealed higher levels of MBL in patients who smoked <10 or >10 cigarettes/day than in non-smokers (<10: (MD -0.33, 95% CI -0.69-0.03 and >10: MD -0.58, 95% CI -0.96- -0.19). There was a significant risk of MBL between patients who smoked >10 and <10 cigarettes/day (MD -0.23, 95% CI -0.47-0.01).
CONCLUSION
It seems the risk of MBL is steadily increasing as daily smoking increases.
Topics: Alveolar Bone Loss; Bone Diseases, Metabolic; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants; Humans; Smokers; Smoking; Tobacco Smoking
PubMed: 36162899
DOI: 10.1016/j.jebdp.2022.101721 -
The Clinical Respiratory Journal Mar 2016Dyspnea is a common and easily elicited presenting complaint in patients seen by physicians who evaluate and take care of chronic respiratory disorders. Although dyspnea... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND AND AIM
Dyspnea is a common and easily elicited presenting complaint in patients seen by physicians who evaluate and take care of chronic respiratory disorders. Although dyspnea is subjective and tends to increase with age or reduced lung function, it appears to be reproducible as a symptom and often signifies serious underlying disease.
METHODS
Systematic review of longitudinal studies with dyspnea as the exposure and mortality as the outcome; age, smoking and lung function had to be controlled for to be included in the review. In addition, a minimum sample size at baseline of 500 subjects was required for each study.
RESULTS
From over 3000 potential references, 10 longitudinal studies met all criteria and were included. All 10 studies suggested that dyspnea was an independent predictor of mortality with point estimates by odds ratio, rate ratio or hazard ratios ranging from 1.3 up to 2.9-fold greater than baseline. All 10 studies had actual or implied 95% confidence interval bands greater than the null value of one.
CONCLUSION
Dyspnea, a symptom, predicts mortality and is a proxy for underlying diseases, most often of heart and lung. Therefore, chronic dyspnea needs to be evaluated as to etiology to allow for treatment to minimize morbidity and mortality when possible.
Topics: Dyspnea; Heart Diseases; Humans; Longitudinal Studies; Lung Diseases; Proportional Hazards Models; Risk Factors; Smoking
PubMed: 25070878
DOI: 10.1111/crj.12191 -
The International Journal of... Mar 2022Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is the third leading cause of death worldwide and an important cause of death in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). We conducted a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is the third leading cause of death worldwide and an important cause of death in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on the prevalence of and risk factors for COPD in SSA. We conducted a protocol-driven systematic literature search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Global Health, supplemented by a manual search of the abstracts from thoracic conference proceedings from 2017 to 2020. We did a meta-analysis of COPD prevalence and its association with current smoking. We identified 831 titles, of which 27 were eligible for inclusion in the review and meta-analysis. The population prevalence of COPD ranged from 1.7% to 24.8% (pooled prevalence: 8%, 95% CI 6-11). An increased prevalence of COPD was associated with increasing age, smoking and biomass smoke exposure. The pooled odds ratio for the effect of current smoking (vs. never smoked) on COPD was 2.20 (95% CI 1.62-2.99). COPD causes morbidity and mortality in adults in SSA. Smoking is an important risk factor for COPD in SSA, and this exposure needs to be reduced through the combined efforts of clinicians, researchers and policymakers to address this debilitating and preventable lung disease.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Prevalence; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Risk Factors; Smoke; Smoking
PubMed: 35197163
DOI: 10.5588/ijtld.21.0394 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2023While cigarette smoking has declined globally, waterpipe smoking is rising, especially among youth. The impact of this rise is amplified by mounting evidence of its... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
While cigarette smoking has declined globally, waterpipe smoking is rising, especially among youth. The impact of this rise is amplified by mounting evidence of its addictive and harmful nature. Waterpipe smoking is influenced by multiple factors, including appealing flavors, marketing, use in social settings, and misperceptions that waterpipe is less harmful or addictive than cigarettes. People who use waterpipes are interested in quitting, but are often unsuccessful at doing so on their own. Therefore, developing and testing waterpipe cessation interventions to help people quit was identified as a priority for global tobacco control efforts. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of tobacco cessation interventions for people who smoke waterpipes.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Review Group Specialized Register from database inception to 29 July 2022, using variant terms and spellings ('waterpipe' or 'narghile' or 'arghile' or 'shisha' or 'goza' or 'narkeela' or 'hookah' or 'hubble bubble'). We searched for trials, published or unpublished, in any language.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We sought randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, or cluster-RCTs of any smoking cessation interventions for people who use waterpipes, of any age or gender. In order to be included, studies had to measure waterpipe abstinence at a three-month follow-up or longer.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome was abstinence from waterpipe use at least three months after baseline. We also collected data on adverse events. Individual study effects and pooled effects were summarized as risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI), using Mantel-Haenszel random-effects models to combine studies, where appropriate. We assessed statistical heterogeneity with the I statistic. We summarized secondary outcomes narratively. We used the five GRADE considerations (risk of bias, inconsistency of effect, imprecision, indirectness, and publication bias) to assess the certainty of the body of evidence for our primary outcome in four categories high, moderate, low, or very low.
MAIN RESULTS
This review included nine studies, involving 2841 participants. All studies were conducted in adults, and were carried out in Iran, Vietnam, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Pakistan, and the USA. Studies were conducted in several settings, including colleges/universities, community healthcare centers, tuberculosis hospitals, and cancer treatment centers, while two studies tested e-health interventions (online web-based educational intervention, text message intervention). Overall, we judged three studies to be at low risk of bias, and six studies at high risk of bias. We pooled data from five studies (1030 participants) that tested intensive face-to-face behavioral interventions compared with brief behavioral intervention (e.g. one behavioral counseling session), usual care (e.g. self-help materials), or no intervention. In our meta-analysis, we included people who used waterpipe exclusively, or with another form of tobacco. Overall, we found low-certainty evidence of a benefit of behavioral support for waterpipe abstinence (RR 3.19 95% CI 2.17 to 4.69; I = 41%; 5 studies, N = 1030). We downgraded the evidence because of imprecision and risk of bias. We pooled data from two studies (N = 662 participants) that tested varenicline combined with behavioral intervention compared with placebo combined with behavioral intervention. Although the point estimate favored varenicline, 95% CIs were imprecise, and incorporated the potential for no difference and lower quit rates in the varenicline groups, as well as a benefit as large as that found in cigarette smoking cessation (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.69 to 2.24; I = 0%; 2 studies, N = 662; low-certainty evidence). We downgraded the evidence because of imprecision. We found no clear evidence of a difference in the number of participants experiencing adverse events (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.44; I = 31%; 2 studies, N = 662). The studies did not report serious adverse events. One study tested the efficacy of seven weeks of bupropion therapy combined with behavioral intervention. There was no clear evidence of benefit for waterpipe cessation when compared with behavioral support alone (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.41; 1 study, N = 121; very low-certainty evidence), or with self-help (RR 1.94, 95% CI 0.94 to 4.00; 1 study, N = 86; very low-certainty evidence). Two studies tested e-health interventions. One study reported higher waterpipe quit rates among participants randomized to either a tailored mobile phone or untailored mobile phone intervention compared with those randomized to no intervention (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.05; 2 studies, N = 319; very low-certainty evidence). Another study reported higher waterpipe abstinence rates following an intensive online educational intervention compared with a brief online educational intervention (RR 1.86, 95% CI 1.08 to 3.21; 1 study, N = 70; very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found low-certainty evidence that behavioral waterpipe cessation interventions can increase waterpipe quit rates among waterpipe smokers. We found insufficient evidence to assess whether varenicline or bupropion increased waterpipe abstinence; available evidence is compatible with effect sizes similar to those seen for cigarette smoking cessation. Given e-health interventions' potential reach and effectiveness for waterpipe cessation, trials with large samples and long follow-up periods are needed. Future studies should use biochemical validation of abstinence to prevent the risk of detection bias. Finally, there has been limited attention given to high-risk groups for waterpipe smoking, such as youth, young adults, pregnant women, and dual or poly tobacco users. These groups would benefit from targeted studies.
Topics: Adolescent; Female; Humans; Bupropion; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Smoking Cessation; Tobacco Use Cessation Devices; Varenicline; Water Pipe Smoking
PubMed: 37286509
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005549.pub4 -
International Journal of Cardiology Jan 2023With widespread awareness about the harmful effects of traditional smoking, many people are considering using an e-cigarette. However, many studies have shown that... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
With widespread awareness about the harmful effects of traditional smoking, many people are considering using an e-cigarette. However, many studies have shown that e-cigarettes are not entirely harmless, and their use has been implicated in causing major adverse cardiovascular events.
METHODS
We adopted the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines to conduct this systematic review. An electronic search was conducted comprehensively through five databases to find the relevant articles. The odds ratio (OR) was used for comparing groups. Meta-analysis was conducted using R statistical software version 3.4.3. A random-effects model was used.
RESULTS
A total of 4 studies were included in the analysis incorporating data on 585,306 individuals. Of these, 19,435 were e-cigarettes users, while 1693 used only traditional cigarettes, and 553,095 were non-e-cigarette users. 7.0% of e-cigarettes users suffered an MI (myocardial infarction), while 7.7% and 6.5% of traditional smokers and non-e-cigarettes users suffered an MI. The OR of getting an MI in e-cigarettes (e-cigarettes only or e-cigarettes + traditional smoking) users was 1.33 (95% CI = 1.14-1.56, p-value = 0.01) in comparison to non e-cigarette users (traditional smoking or no smoking). While it is 0.61 (95% CI = 0.40-0.93, p-value 0.02) when compared with traditional smoking.
CONCLUSION
Those using e-cigarettes have higher odds of suffering from an MI in comparison to not using e-cigarettes. However, using e-cigarettes is associated with half risk of the risk of MI in comparison to traditional smoking.
Topics: Humans; Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems; Smoking; Smoking Cessation; Smokers; Myocardial Infarction
PubMed: 36087629
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2022.09.007