Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27209032›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2016

Clearing the air: protocol for a systematic meta-narrative review on the harms and benefits of e-cigarettes and vapour devices.

Marjorie MacDonald, Renee O'Leary, Tim Stockwell, Dan Reist, Clearing the Air project team

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Marjorie MacDonaldSchool of Nursing, University of Victoria, Room A402a, HSD Building, 3800 Finnerty Road, Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2, Canada. marjorie@uvic.ca.
Renee O'LearyCentre for Addictions Research of British Columbia, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, V8W 2Y2, Canada.
Tim StockwellCentre for Addictions Research of British Columbia, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, V8W 2Y2, Canada.
Dan ReistCentre for Addictions Research of British Columbia, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, V8W 2Y2, Canada.
Clearing the Air project team

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUnder the shadow of the tobacco epidemic, the sale and use of e-cigarettes and other vapour devices is increasing dramatically. A contentious debate has risen within public health over the harms and benefits of these devices. Clearing the Air seeks to clarify the issues with a systematic review that informs the pressing regulatory and public health decisions to be made regarding these new products. METHODS/

designUsing an integrated knowledge translation approach, public health researchers and knowledge users will work collaboratively throughout the project. Our research questions are the following: (1) What are the health risks and benefits of vapour devices, and how do these compare to cigarettes? (2) What is the harm reduction potential of vapour devices for individuals, the environment, and society? (3) Does youth vapour device experimentation lead to cigarette use? (4) Can vapour devices be effective aids for tobacco cessation? and (5) What is the potential toxicity of second-hand vapour? We are using meta-narrative review to synthesize studies from diverse research traditions because of its capacity to address contestations around a topic. The project has six phases. In the planning phase, we finalized the research questions. In the search phase, we are locating academic publications and grey literature aided by a research librarian. The mapping phase involves categorizing these papers into research traditions to understand different perspectives on the evidence for each research question. In the appraisal phase, we will select and evaluate the relevant papers. Finally, in the synthesis phase, using analytic techniques unique to meta-narrative methodology, we will compare and contrast the evidence from different research traditions to answer our research questions, identifying overarching meta-narratives. In the final stage, the full team will draft recommendations to be disseminated through a variety of knowledge translation strategies. DISCUSSION: Meta-narrative synthesis has the unique capacity to expose the debates that are influencing the interpretation of empirical studies on vapour devices. We seek to "clear the air" with an even-handed review of the evidence and an understanding of the tensions within public health so that we can offer clear-headed recommendations for policy, regulation, and future research. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42015025267.

Indexed as

Smoking CessationElectronic Nicotine Delivery SystemsEnvironmental ExposureHarm ReductionHumansRisk AssessmentSmokingSystematic Reviews as TopicVapingE-cigarettesHarm reductionHealth impactsMeta-narrative reviewMeta-narrative synthesisSmoking cessationSystematic reviewVapour devices

Identifiers

PMID27209032
PMCPMC4875675

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.