-
The Cleft Palate-craniofacial Journal :... Sep 2022A systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the association between active maternal smoking and cleft lip and palate etiology. Medline, Embase, Web of Science and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
A systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the association between active maternal smoking and cleft lip and palate etiology. Medline, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library from inception to November, 2020. Observational studies of cigarette smoking habits in pregnant women. Outcomes included cleft lip and/or palate, cleft lip ± palate and cleft palate only. Publication bias analyses were performed and the Newcastle Ottawa scales were used to assess study quality. Fixed or random effect models were used in the meta-analysis, dependent on risk of statistical heterogeneity. Forty-five studies were eligible for inclusion of which 11 were cohort and 34 were case-control studies. Sixteen studies were of sufficient standard for inclusion in the meta-analysis. The summary odds ratio for the association between smoking and cleft lip and/or palate was 1.42 (95%CI 1.27-1.59) with a population attributable fraction of 4% (95%CI 3%-5%). There was limited evidence to show a dose-response effect of smoking. This review reports a moderate association between maternal smoking and orofacial cleft but the overall quality of the conventional observational studies included was poor. There is a need for high quality and novel research strategies to further define the role of smoking in the etiology of cleft lip and palate.
Topics: Cigarette Smoking; Cleft Lip; Cleft Palate; Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Prenatal Exposure Delayed Effects; Smoking
PubMed: 34569861
DOI: 10.1177/10556656211040015 -
BMC Oral Health Nov 2019Smoking is a major risk factor for periodontitis and tooth loss. Smoking cessation has a positive impact in periodontal treatment. However, so far, no systematic review... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Smoking is a major risk factor for periodontitis and tooth loss. Smoking cessation has a positive impact in periodontal treatment. However, so far, no systematic review has evaluated the effect of smoking cessation on tooth loss. Therefore, this review aimed to evaluate if smoking cessation reduces the risk of tooth loss.
METHODS
Observational (cross-sectional and longitudinal) studies that investigated the association between smoking cessation and tooth loss were included. MEDLINE, EMBASE and LILACS databases were searched for articles published up to November 2018. Pooled results for subgroups of current and former smokers were compared in meta-analysis. Meta-regression was used to test the influence of smoking status on estimates and explore the heterogeneity.
RESULTS
Of 230 potentially relevant publications, 21 studies were included in the qualitative review and 12 in the quantitative analysis. Meta-analysis of cross-sectional studies did not show any differences between former and current smokers in the chance of losing 1 or more teeth (OR = 1.00; 95% CI = 0.80 to 1.24, I = 80%), losing more than 8 teeth (OR = 1.02; 95% CI = 0.78 to 1.32, I = 0%) or being edentulous (OR = 1.37; 95% CI = 0.94 to 1.99, I = 98%). Meta-analysis from longitudinal studies showed that, when compared to never smokers, former smokers presented no increased risk of tooth loss (RR = 1.15; 95% CI = 0.98 to 1.35, I = 76%), while current smokers presented an increased risk of tooth loss (RR = 2.60; 95% CI = 2.29 to 2.96, I = 61%). Meta-regression showed that, among former smokers, the time of cessation was the variable that better explained heterogeneity (approximately 60%).
CONCLUSIONS
Risk for tooth loss in former smokers is comparable to that of never smokers. Moreover, former smokers have a reduced risk of tooth loss, when compared to current smokers.
Topics: Humans; Oral Health; Risk Factors; Smoking; Smoking Cessation; Tooth Loss
PubMed: 31718636
DOI: 10.1186/s12903-019-0930-2 -
Medicine Aug 2016Previous studies have warned against the promoting effects of cigarette smoking on benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). In contrast, some have argued that smoking confers... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Previous studies have warned against the promoting effects of cigarette smoking on benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). In contrast, some have argued that smoking confers a protective effect regarding BPH, while others have observed an aggravated effect. Thus, we performed this meta-analysis to determine whether cigarette use is associated with BPH risk.To identify articles from observational studies of relevance, a search was performed concurrent to March 21, 2016, on PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane, EBSCO, and EMBASE databases. Random-effect model, according to the heterogeneity, was calculated to reveal the relative risks (RRs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).Eight articles were included in this meta-analysis, representing data for 44,100 subjects, of which 5221 (11.8%) had BPH as defined according to the criteria. Seven reports are concerned with analysis between nonsmokers and ex-smokers, in which no significant difference was observed (RR = 0.99, 95% CI 0.94-1.05). Another meta-analysis of 7 studies indicated an observable trend, but without significant difference between groups of nonsmokers and current smokers (RR = 1.17, 95% CI 0.98-1.41). Between groups of heavy (6 articles; RR = 1.02, 95% CI 0.84-1.24) and light smokers (5 articles; RR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.71-1.15), again no significant difference appears. Finally, we combined individuals as never-smokers and ever-smokers and still found no significant difference between the 2 groups of patients (RR = 1.03, 95% CI 0.92-1.15). Sensitivity analysis was displayed and confirmed the stability of the present results.Combined evidence from observational studies shows no significant association between cigarette smoking and BPH risk, either for ex-smokers or for current smokers. The trend of elevated BPH risk from smoking was observed only in current smokers compared with nonsmokers, while marginal significance was observed in comparing ever-smokers with never-smokers in operative patients with BPH.
Topics: Humans; Male; Observational Studies as Topic; Prostatic Hyperplasia; Smoking
PubMed: 27512883
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000004565 -
Indian Journal of Ophthalmology Jun 2022There is conflicting evidence for the association between smoking and dry eye disease (DED). We conducted a meta-analysis to determine the true relationship between... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
There is conflicting evidence for the association between smoking and dry eye disease (DED). We conducted a meta-analysis to determine the true relationship between smoking and DED. A systematic literature search was performed using electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library, till August 2021 to identify observational studies with data on smoking as risk factor of DED. Quality assessment of the included studies was conducted using Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal checklists. The random-effects model was used to calculate the pooled odds ratio (OR). Heterogeneity was evaluated by Cochrane Q and I index; in addition, subgroup, sensitivity, and meta-regression analyses were performed. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plot and Egger's regression test. A total of 22 studies (4 cohort and 18 cross-sectional studies) with 160,217 subjects met the inclusion criteria and were included in this meta-analysis. There is no statistically significant relationship between current smokers (OR = 1.14; 95% CI: 0.95-1.36; P = 0.15; I = 84%) and former smokers (OR = 1.06; 95% CI: 0.93-1.20; P = 0.38; I = 26.7%) for the risk of DED. The results remained consistent across various subgroups. No risk of publication bias was detected by funnel plot and Eggers's test (P > 0.05). No source of heterogeneity was observed in the meta-regression analysis. Our meta-analysis suggest current or former smoking may not be involved in the risk of dry eye disease. Further studies to understand the mechanism of interaction between current smokers and formers smokers with DED are recommended.
Topics: Cohort Studies; Cross-Sectional Studies; Dry Eye Syndromes; Humans; Risk Factors; Smoking
PubMed: 35647954
DOI: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_2193_21 -
PLoS Medicine 2013Smoking is a well-established risk factor for atherosclerotic disease, but its role as an independent risk factor for venous thromboembolism (VTE) remains controversial.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Smoking is a well-established risk factor for atherosclerotic disease, but its role as an independent risk factor for venous thromboembolism (VTE) remains controversial. We conducted a meta-analysis to summarize all published prospective studies and case-control studies to update the risk for VTE in smokers and determine whether a dose-response relationship exists.
METHODS AND FINDINGS
We performed a literature search using MEDLINE (source PubMed, January 1, 1966 to June 15, 2013) and EMBASE (January 1, 1980 to June 15, 2013) with no restrictions. Pooled effect estimates were obtained by using random-effects meta-analysis. Thirty-two observational studies involving 3,966,184 participants and 35,151 VTE events were identified. Compared with never smokers, the overall combined relative risks (RRs) for developing VTE were 1.17 (95% CI 1.09-1.25) for ever smokers, 1.23 (95% CI 1.14-1.33) for current smokers, and 1.10 (95% CI 1.03-1.17) for former smokers, respectively. The risk increased by 10.2% (95% CI 8.6%-11.8%) for every additional ten cigarettes per day smoked or by 6.1% (95% CI 3.8%-8.5%) for every additional ten pack-years. Analysis of 13 studies adjusted for body mass index (BMI) yielded a relatively higher RR (1.30; 95% CI 1.24-1.37) for current smokers. The population attributable fractions of VTE were 8.7% (95% CI 4.8%-12.3%) for ever smoking, 5.8% (95% CI 3.6%-8.2%) for current smoking, and 2.7% (95% CI 0.8%-4.5%) for former smoking. Smoking was associated with an absolute risk increase of 24.3 (95% CI 15.4-26.7) cases per 100,000 person-years.
CONCLUSIONS
Cigarette smoking is associated with a slightly increased risk for VTE. BMI appears to be a confounding factor in the risk estimates. The relationship between VTE and smoking has clinical relevance with respect to individual screening, risk factor modification, and the primary and secondary prevention of VTE. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.
Topics: Case-Control Studies; Cohort Studies; Genetic Heterogeneity; Humans; Incidence; Risk Factors; Smoking; Venous Thromboembolism
PubMed: 24068896
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001515 -
Chest Jul 2016Smoking tobacco increases the risk of respiratory disease in adults and children, but communicating the magnitude of these effects in a scientific manner that is... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Smoking tobacco increases the risk of respiratory disease in adults and children, but communicating the magnitude of these effects in a scientific manner that is accessible and usable by the public and policymakers presents a challenge. We have therefore summarized scientific data on the impact of smoking on respiratory diseases to provide the content for a unique resource, SmokeHaz.
METHODS
We conducted systematic reviews and meta-analyses of longitudinal studies (published to 2013) identified from electronic databases, gray literature, and experts. Random effect meta-analyses were used to pool the findings.
RESULTS
We included 216 articles. Among adult smokers, we confirmed substantially increased risks of lung cancer (risk ratio (RR), 10.92; 95% CI, 8.28-14.40; 34 studies), COPD (RR, 4.01; 95% CI, 3.18-5.05; 22 studies), and asthma (RR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.07-2.42; eight studies). Exposure to passive smoke significantly increased the risk of lung cancer in adult nonsmokers and increased the risks of asthma, wheeze, lower respiratory infections, and reduced lung function in children. Smoking significantly increased the risk of sleep apnea and asthma exacerbations in adult and pregnant populations, and active and passive smoking increased the risk of tuberculosis.
CONCLUSIONS
These findings have been translated into easily digestible content and published on the SmokeHaz website.
Topics: Humans; Public Health; Respiratory Tract Diseases; Risk Factors; Smoking
PubMed: 27102185
DOI: 10.1016/j.chest.2016.03.060 -
American Journal of Kidney Diseases :... Aug 2011Cigarette smoking is associated with increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in the general population, but the effect of smoking on these outcomes in the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Cigarette smoking is associated with increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in the general population, but the effect of smoking on these outcomes in the dialysis population is less well studied.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies.
SETTING & POPULATION
Adults treated with long-term hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis. SELECTION CRITERIA FOR INCLUDED STUDIES: Cohort studies of unselected dialysis patients reporting the association between smoking status and cardiovascular morbidity and/or mortality.
PREDICTOR
Smoking status (determined using patient report).
OUTCOMES
(1) All-cause or cardiovascular mortality; (2) incident cardiovascular events.
RESULTS
We identified 34 studies that fulfilled all inclusion criteria. Of these, 26 studies provided data for smoking and mortality and 10 (n = 6,538) were included in a meta-analysis. The pooled HR for all-cause mortality in smokers compared with nonsmokers was 1.65 (95% CI, 1.26-2.14; P < 0.001). 11 studies provided data for smoking and incident cardiovascular events; 5 (pooled n = 845) were included in a meta-analysis. The pooled HR for composite cardiovascular events in smokers compared with nonsmokers was 1.01 (95% CI, 0.98-1.05; P = 0.4).
LIMITATIONS
Data for these meta-analyses were heterogeneous. Few individual studies assessed smoking as the primary variable of interest.
CONCLUSIONS
Active smoking is associated with a significant increase in all-cause mortality in dialysis patients, although there was no corresponding increased risk of cardiovascular events.
Topics: Cardiovascular Diseases; Humans; Renal Dialysis; Smoking
PubMed: 21664017
DOI: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2011.03.025 -
International Journal of Environmental... Sep 2022Small cigarette pack sizes contain less than 20 cigarette sticks in a pack. Smaller packs may suggest lower costs, increasing affordability among lower-income users,... (Review)
Review
Small cigarette pack sizes contain less than 20 cigarette sticks in a pack. Smaller packs may suggest lower costs, increasing affordability among lower-income users, especially the younger generation, which could lead to tobacco-related diseases and economic costs, including human capital lost results from tobacco-attributable morbidity and mortality. This concern has caused many countries to ban the sale of single cigarette sticks or kiddie packs. However, small cigarette pack sizes were proposed recently to be reintroduced by the tobacco industry with an excuse to prevent consumers from buying illicit cigarettes. This would demean efforts in combating tobacco consumption based on the existing tobacco control policies to prevent minors from purchasing cigarettes. Given the competing influences of affordability and availability of tobacco on consumption and the dearth of evidence-based review on the impact of pack size on smoking, this systematic review was conducted to identify the link between kiddie packs and smoking specifically on the initiation of smoking, urge/tendency to buy cigarettes among the general population and attempt to reduce cigarette consumption and prevalence of smoking using kiddie packs among current smokers. We include all studies except for reviews, guidelines, conference papers, commentaries, editorials, or opinion pieces. A database search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Web of Science and Scopus on 27 November 2021. The results were presented in the form of narrative synthesis under four groups: initiation of smoking; urge/tendency to buy cigarettes; the prevalence of smoking, and attempt to reduce cigarette consumption. The literature search identified 1601 articles, of which 21 articles had met the inclusion criteria. The methodological quality of all included articles was determined using a validated 16-item quality assessment tool (QATSDD). The average quality score for all papers was 34.8%. Given the diverse study settings of the articles and despite the challenges of the methodological quality of some articles, this review provides some evidence that kiddie packs may increase the urge/tendency to buy cigarettes and mixed evidence on the attempt to reduce cigarette consumption. This review also found some evidence that kiddie pack purchasing among teenage smokers was higher compared to adults. However, we are uncertain about the link between kiddie packs and smoking initiation. Nevertheless, since most studies were of low quality, further high-quality studies are needed to conclude about the impact of kiddie packs on smoking to assist the policymakers and stakeholders in formulating new policies and strengthening existing strategies related to the kiddie packs.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Humans; Product Packaging; Smoking; Smoking Cessation; Nicotiana; Tobacco Industry; Tobacco Products
PubMed: 36231349
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191912051 -
Journal of Medical Internet Research Apr 2023Smoking is a leading cause of premature death globally. Quitting smoking reduces the risk of all-cause mortality by 11%-34%. Smartphone app-based smoking cessation... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Smoking is a leading cause of premature death globally. Quitting smoking reduces the risk of all-cause mortality by 11%-34%. Smartphone app-based smoking cessation (SASC) interventions have been developed and are widely used. However, the evidence for the effectiveness of smartphone-based interventions for smoking cessation is currently equivocal.
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this study was to synthesize the evidence for the effectiveness of smartphone app-based interventions for smoking cessation.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of smartphone interventions for smoking cessation based on the Cochrane methodology. An electronic literature search was performed using the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang databases to identify published papers in English or Chinese (there was no time limit regarding the publication date). The outcome was the smoking abstinence rate, which was either a 7-day point prevalence abstinence rate or a continuous abstinence rate.
RESULTS
A total of 9 randomized controlled trials involving 12,967 adults were selected for the final analysis. The selected studies from 6 countries (the United States, Spain, France, Switzerland, Canada, and Japan) were included in the meta-analysis between 2018 and 2022. Pooled effect sizes (across all follow-up time points) revealed no difference between the smartphone app group and the comparators (standard care, SMS text messaging intervention, web-based intervention, smoking cessation counseling, or apps as placebos without real function; odds ratio [OR] 1.25, 95% CI 0.99-1.56, P=.06, I=73.6%). Based on the subanalyses, 6 trials comparing smartphone app interventions to comparator interventions reported no significant differences in effectiveness (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.85-1.26, P=.74, I=57.1%). However, the 3 trials that evaluated the combination of smartphone interventions combined with pharmacotherapy compared to pharmacotherapy alone found higher smoking abstinence rates in the combined intervention (OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.38-2.33, P=.74, I=7.4%). All SASC interventions with higher levels of adherence were significantly more effective (OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.20-1.84, P<.001, I=24.5%).
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review and meta-analysis did not support the effectiveness of delivering smartphone-based interventions alone to achieve higher smoking abstinence rates. However, the efficacy of smartphone-based interventions increased when combined with pharmacotherapy-based smoking cessation approaches.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42021267615; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=267615.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Smoking Cessation; Mobile Applications; Health Behavior; Smoking; Smartphone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37079352
DOI: 10.2196/43242 -
Addiction Biology Mar 2024A network meta-analysis (NMA) including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted to evaluate the effects of different interventions on smoking cessation.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
A network meta-analysis (NMA) including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted to evaluate the effects of different interventions on smoking cessation. Studies were collected from online databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Eligible studies were further examined in the NMA to compare the effect of 14 interventions on smoking cessation. Thirty-four studies were examined in the NMA, including a total of 14 interventions and 28 733 participants. The results showed that health education (HE; odds ratio ([OR] = 200.29, 95% CI [1.62, 24 794.61])), other interventions (OI; OR = 29.79, 95% CI [1.07, 882.17]) and multimodal interventions (MUIs; OR = 100.16, 95% CI [2.06, 4867.24]) were better than self-help material (SHM). HE (OR = 243.31, 95% CI [1.39, 42531.33]), MUI (OR = 121.67, 95% CI [1.64, 9004.86]) and financial incentive (FI; OR = 14.09, 95% CI [1.21, 164.31]) had positive effects on smoking cessation rate than smoking cessation or quitting APP (QA). Ranking results showed that HE (83.6%) and motivation interviewing (MI; 69.6%) had better short-term effects on smoking cessation. HE and MUI provided more smoking cessation benefits than SHM and QA. FI was more effective at quitting smoking than QA. Also, HE and MI were more likely to be optimal smoking cessation interventions.
Topics: Humans; Smoking Cessation; Network Meta-Analysis; Smoking; Tobacco Use Cessation Devices; Behavior Therapy
PubMed: 38488699
DOI: 10.1111/adb.13376