Selected article for: "bias risk and evidence overall quality"

Author: Banks, E.; Yazidjoglou, A.; Brown, S.; Ford, L.; Zulfiqar, T.; Baenziger, O.; Joshy, G.
Title: Systematic review and meta-analysis of evidence on the efficacy of e-cigarette use for sustained smoking and nicotine cessation
  • Cord-id: ngxfb5gi
  • Document date: 2020_11_4
  • ID: ngxfb5gi
    Snippet: Objective: To systematically review and meta-analyse evidence regarding the efficacy of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) as smoking cessation aids. Data Sources: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, PsycINFO, MEDLINE and Cochrane Library were searched up to February-March 2020 (PROSPERO registration CRD42020170692). Study selection: Published peer-reviewed randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of the efficacy of ENDS for sustained cessation of combustible tobacco smoking and/or nicotine use,
    Document: Objective: To systematically review and meta-analyse evidence regarding the efficacy of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) as smoking cessation aids. Data Sources: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, PsycINFO, MEDLINE and Cochrane Library were searched up to February-March 2020 (PROSPERO registration CRD42020170692). Study selection: Published peer-reviewed randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of the efficacy of ENDS for sustained cessation of combustible tobacco smoking and/or nicotine use, compared with no intervention, placebo or nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) by intention-to-treat, with a minimum of four months follow-up. Data Extraction: Data were extracted independently into a pre-specified template. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration's tool and evidence quality rated using GRADE. Data Synthesis: From 3,973 titles identified, nine RCTs were identified; 330 of 5,445 smokers randomised quit. Smoking cessation did not differ significantly for randomisation to ENDS versus: no intervention (three studies, random-effects meta-analysis RR 1.95; 95%CI 0.90-4.22); placebo (three studies, 1.61; 0.93-2.78) or NRT (three studies; 1.25; 0.74-2.11). Fixed-effects sensitivity analyses showed significant results for ENDS vs NRT (1.43; 1.10-1.86). Smokers randomised to ENDS were substantially more likely than control to use nicotine at follow-up. Overall evidence quality was low. Considering only studies without potential competing interests further limited evidence but did not materially change conclusions. Conclusions: There is insufficient evidence that ENDS are efficacious for smoking cessation compared to no intervention, placebo or NRT. Results are promising, particularly for therapeutic use, but vary according to analytic method. ENDS may lead to greater ongoing nicotine exposure than other smoking cessation methods.

    Search related documents: