Renée O'Leary, Giusy Rita Maria La Rosa, Riccardo Polosa
{"title":"Examining e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation treatment: A critical umbrella review analysis.","authors":"Renée O'Leary, Giusy Rita Maria La Rosa, Riccardo Polosa","doi":"10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2024.112520","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>This umbrella review identified the current high-quality systematic reviews on e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation aid. What is the comparative effectiveness of e-cigarettes compared to other cessation treatments or approaches? We also investigated the systematic reviews for reporting biases.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This umbrella review was based on the Methods for Overviews of Reviews (MOoR) framework and the Preferred Reporting Items for Overviews of Reviews (PRIOR). The search was conducted in six databases and grey literature searches in four sources, plus four secondary searches. A Vote Counting Direction of Effect was selected for the analysis method because of high heterogeneity among the primary studies and the potential overweighting of data from two primary studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sixteen systematic reviews were retrieved. Eight with an AMSTAR2 rating of moderate or high confidence were included, encompassing 24 randomized controlled trials. The analysis found that in 8 of 11 comparisons, e-cigarettes were more effective, and 3 of 11 comparisons reported no statistically significant difference. No reviews concluded that e-cigarettes were significantly less effective than any treatment or no treatment.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our analysis indicated that e-cigarettes are more effective than other treatments for smoking cessation. For ENDS compared solely to NRT, the evidence was mixed and still favored the effectiveness of ENDS. In any case, the success rates for cessation with ENDS was 10 % - 12 % at 6 months to one year, and the effect of relapse has not been sufficiently studied. New treatments and approaches are urgently needed.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>PROSPERO CRD42023406165; International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/47711.</p>","PeriodicalId":93983,"journal":{"name":"Drug and alcohol dependence","volume":"266 ","pages":"112520"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Drug and alcohol dependence","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2024.112520","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介本综述确定了目前有关电子烟作为戒烟辅助工具的高质量系统综述。与其他戒烟治疗或方法相比,电子烟的比较效果如何?我们还调查了系统综述的报告偏差:本综述基于综述方法(MOoR)框架和综述首选报告项目(PRIOR)。在六个数据库中进行了检索,在四个来源中进行了灰色文献检索,另外还进行了四次二次检索。由于主要研究的异质性较高,且两项主要研究的数据可能过重,因此选择了效果方向计票法进行分析:结果:共检索到 16 篇系统综述。结果:共检索到 16 篇系统综述,其中 8 篇被评为 AMSTAR2 中度或高度可信,包括 24 项随机对照试验。分析发现,在 11 项比较中,有 8 项比较显示电子烟更有效,而 11 项比较中,有 3 项比较显示没有统计学意义上的显著差异。没有综述认为电子烟的效果明显低于任何治疗或无治疗:我们的分析表明,电子烟比其他戒烟疗法更有效。至于ENDS与NRT的比较,证据不一,但仍倾向于ENDS的有效性。无论如何,使用ENDS 6个月至1年的戒烟成功率为10%-12%,而且对复吸的影响还没有进行充分的研究。我们迫切需要新的治疗方法:注册:PROSPERO CRD42023406165;国际注册报告标识符(IRRID):PRR1-10.2196/47711。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Examining e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation treatment: A critical umbrella review analysis.

Introduction: This umbrella review identified the current high-quality systematic reviews on e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation aid. What is the comparative effectiveness of e-cigarettes compared to other cessation treatments or approaches? We also investigated the systematic reviews for reporting biases.

Methods: This umbrella review was based on the Methods for Overviews of Reviews (MOoR) framework and the Preferred Reporting Items for Overviews of Reviews (PRIOR). The search was conducted in six databases and grey literature searches in four sources, plus four secondary searches. A Vote Counting Direction of Effect was selected for the analysis method because of high heterogeneity among the primary studies and the potential overweighting of data from two primary studies.

Results: Sixteen systematic reviews were retrieved. Eight with an AMSTAR2 rating of moderate or high confidence were included, encompassing 24 randomized controlled trials. The analysis found that in 8 of 11 comparisons, e-cigarettes were more effective, and 3 of 11 comparisons reported no statistically significant difference. No reviews concluded that e-cigarettes were significantly less effective than any treatment or no treatment.

Conclusions: Our analysis indicated that e-cigarettes are more effective than other treatments for smoking cessation. For ENDS compared solely to NRT, the evidence was mixed and still favored the effectiveness of ENDS. In any case, the success rates for cessation with ENDS was 10 % - 12 % at 6 months to one year, and the effect of relapse has not been sufficiently studied. New treatments and approaches are urgently needed.

Registration: PROSPERO CRD42023406165; International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/47711.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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