Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38286688›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2024

Safety, efficacy and health impact of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS): an umbrella review protocol.

Sonu Goel, Muhammed Shabil, Jagdish Kaur, Anil Chauhan, Arvind Vashishta Rinkoo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 12 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Comment on "A systematic review of fully circumferential inlet patches (heterotopic gastric mucosa): More complicated than regular inlet patches".Indian journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Indian Society of Gastroenterology · 2025
    Article
  17. Review
  18. 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.

Sonu GoelUniversity of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland sonu.goel@ul.ie.ORCID 0000-0001-5231-7083
Muhammed ShabilDepartment of Pharmacy Practice, M. S. Ramaiah University of Applied Sciences, Banglore, India.
Jagdish KaurWorld Health Organization Regional Office for South-East Asia, New Delhi, Delhi, India.ORCID 0000-0001-9800-9203
Anil ChauhanDepartment of Telemedicine, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.
Arvind Vashishta RinkooWorld Health Organization Regional Office for South-East Asia, New Delhi, India.

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundElectronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS), commonly known as e-cigarettes or vapes, have witnessed a rise in popularity, particularly among the youth. Although they were initially introduced as an alternative to traditional smoking, the design and function of ENDS vary. The potential health effects of ENDS, especially in comparison to traditional cigarettes, are a matter of ongoing debate. Given the increasing number of clinical studies and systematic reviews on this topic, there exists a demand for an umbrella review that offers a comprehensive assessment. The goal of this study is to perform an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses to assess the safety, efficacy, health implications and potential gateway effect associated with ENDS. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This umbrella review will adhere to the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) framework and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidelines. A planned literature search will be executed across databases such as OVID, PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science. The inclusion criteria are systematic reviews that discuss ENDS and e-liquids in the context of safety, efficacy and health outcomes. The exclusion criteria include narrative reviews, non-systematic reviews and studies not in English. Quality of the selected studies will be evaluated using the AMSTAR V.2 Scale. An overlap assessment will be done using the Corrected Covered Area, and data synthesis will be presented both narratively and in tabulated forms ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required for this study, as it does not involve the collection of original data. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication. The findings will offer crucial insights for stakeholders, policy-makers and the general public, underlining the health implications and the role of ENDS in tobacco cessation.

Indexed as

Electronic Nicotine Delivery SystemsAcademies and InstitutesAdministrative PersonnelAdolescentHumansMeta-Analysis as TopicResearch DesignReview Literature as TopicSystematic Reviews as TopicTobacco SmokingHealth & safetyPUBLIC HEALTHSystematic Review

Identifiers

PMID38286688
PMCPMC10826537

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.