The waterpipe smoking and human health: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 191 observational studies.

IF 6.3 4区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Mahdi Sepidarkish, Shima Rezazadeh, Helia Ghaffari Hamedani, Fatemeh Lohrasbi, Sadaf Abdi, Zahra Mohammadi-Pirouz, Fatemeh Ghavam, Wasim Maziak
{"title":"The waterpipe smoking and human health: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 191 observational studies.","authors":"Mahdi Sepidarkish, Shima Rezazadeh, Helia Ghaffari Hamedani, Fatemeh Lohrasbi, Sadaf Abdi, Zahra Mohammadi-Pirouz, Fatemeh Ghavam, Wasim Maziak","doi":"10.1186/s13643-025-02799-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>While growing evidence highlights the harmful effects of waterpipe smoking (WPS), detailed information about its association to chronic diseases remains limited. This systematic review and meta-analysis exploring the association between WPS and various health conditions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search of MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science was conducted from inception to January 2025. Eligible observational studies on WPS and health outcomes were selected through a duplicate, independent process. Data extraction, including study details, participant characteristics, methods, and results, was performed independently by two reviewers using a standardized form. Methodological quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS), and studies were classified as high, moderate, or poor quality. The GRADE approach was applied to evaluate evidence certainty for each outcome, considering factors such as study design, risk of bias, consistency, precision, and publication bias.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 191 studies with 807,174 participants were included, comprising 98 case-control, 77 cross-sectional, and 16 cohort studies from 24 countries. The median number of studies analyzed per outcome was 5, with a range of 3 to 30. Among the 62 outcomes evaluated, 31 (50%) demonstrated statistically significant effect sizes based on a random-effects model, with stroke, coronary artery disease (CAD), and cancer mortality exhibiting a significant prediction interval. Credibility evaluations identified low-quality evidence for birth weight, CAD, and cardiovascular and cancer mortality, whereas the evidence for the remaining outcomes was graded as very low quality. Significant associations were found between WPS and several health outcomes: gastric cancer, lung cancer, bladder cancer, esophageal cancer, CAD, stroke, diabetes, metabolic syndrome, overall mortality, cardiovascular mortality, cancer mortality, infertility, sperm normal form, sperm DNA fragmentation, chronic bronchitis, cough, sputum, low birth weight (LBW), spirometry parameters, and several dental health indicators.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study reveals strong links between WPS and adverse health outcomes, but low evidence quality calls for rigorous research and public health interventions to mitigate its effects.</p>","PeriodicalId":22162,"journal":{"name":"Systematic Reviews","volume":"14 1","pages":"74"},"PeriodicalIF":6.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11956342/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Systematic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-025-02799-y","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: While growing evidence highlights the harmful effects of waterpipe smoking (WPS), detailed information about its association to chronic diseases remains limited. This systematic review and meta-analysis exploring the association between WPS and various health conditions.

Methods: A systematic search of MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science was conducted from inception to January 2025. Eligible observational studies on WPS and health outcomes were selected through a duplicate, independent process. Data extraction, including study details, participant characteristics, methods, and results, was performed independently by two reviewers using a standardized form. Methodological quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS), and studies were classified as high, moderate, or poor quality. The GRADE approach was applied to evaluate evidence certainty for each outcome, considering factors such as study design, risk of bias, consistency, precision, and publication bias.

Results: A total of 191 studies with 807,174 participants were included, comprising 98 case-control, 77 cross-sectional, and 16 cohort studies from 24 countries. The median number of studies analyzed per outcome was 5, with a range of 3 to 30. Among the 62 outcomes evaluated, 31 (50%) demonstrated statistically significant effect sizes based on a random-effects model, with stroke, coronary artery disease (CAD), and cancer mortality exhibiting a significant prediction interval. Credibility evaluations identified low-quality evidence for birth weight, CAD, and cardiovascular and cancer mortality, whereas the evidence for the remaining outcomes was graded as very low quality. Significant associations were found between WPS and several health outcomes: gastric cancer, lung cancer, bladder cancer, esophageal cancer, CAD, stroke, diabetes, metabolic syndrome, overall mortality, cardiovascular mortality, cancer mortality, infertility, sperm normal form, sperm DNA fragmentation, chronic bronchitis, cough, sputum, low birth weight (LBW), spirometry parameters, and several dental health indicators.

Conclusion: This study reveals strong links between WPS and adverse health outcomes, but low evidence quality calls for rigorous research and public health interventions to mitigate its effects.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Systematic Reviews
Systematic Reviews Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
8.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
241
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊介绍: Systematic Reviews encompasses all aspects of the design, conduct and reporting of systematic reviews. The journal publishes high quality systematic review products including systematic review protocols, systematic reviews related to a very broad definition of health, rapid reviews, updates of already completed systematic reviews, and methods research related to the science of systematic reviews, such as decision modelling. At this time Systematic Reviews does not accept reviews of in vitro studies. The journal also aims to ensure that the results of all well-conducted systematic reviews are published, regardless of their outcome.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信