Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34262971›Full record

ReviewERJ open research2021

Prospective association between use of electronic cigarettes and use of conventional cigarettes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Louise Adermark, Maria Rosaria Galanti, Charlotta Ryk, Hans Gilljam, Linnea Hedman

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in ERJ open research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Perceptions of e-Cigarettes and Heated Tobacco Products Among Never Users of Nicotine in the European Union.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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.

Louise AdermarkDept of Psychiatry and Neurochemistry, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7165-9908
Maria Rosaria GalantiDept of Global Public Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Charlotta RykSwedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services (SBU), Stockholm, Sweden.
Hans GilljamDept of Global Public Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Linnea HedmanDept of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Division Sustainable health, The OLIN Unit, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the association between e-cigarette use and subsequent initiation or recurrence of cigarette smoking. DATA SOURCES: A systematic literature search was finalised on 11 November 2019 using PubMed (including MEDLINE), EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Scopus, PubMed Health, NICE Evidence Search, PROSPERO, CRD and PsycInfo. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were included if meeting the following criteria: reporting empirical results; longitudinal observational design with a minimum of 3 months of follow-up; including general population samples; allowing for the comparison between users and nonusers of e-cigarettes. Studies rated as having high risk of bias were excluded. Studies were independently assessed by at least two authors. The procedures described by PRISMA were followed, and the quality of evidence was rated using GRADE. DATA SYNTHESIS: 30 longitudinal studies from 22 different cohorts assessing e-cigarette use among nonsmokers or never-smokers at baseline, and subsequent use of cigarette smoking at follow-up, were included in this review. A random-effects meta-analysis based on 89 076 participants showed a pooled unadjusted odds ratio (OR) of cigarette smoking among baseline nonsmoker e-cigarette users compared with nonusers of 4.68 (CI 3.64-6.02), while the adjusted OR was 3.37 (CI 2.68-4.24). These results were consistent irrespective of whether the outcome was measured as ever-smoking or as past 30-day smoking. The evidence was graded as moderate.

conclusionsUse of e-cigarettes may predict the initiation or recurrence of cigarette smoking.

Identifiers

PMID34262971
PMCPMC8273394

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.