Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39604914›Full record

SynthesisBMC public health2024

A global prevalence of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) use among students: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 4,189,145 subjects.

Muayad Saud Albadrani, Muhammad Abubaker Tobaiqi, Mohammed A Muaddi, Heba M Eltahir, Esra Seddiq Abdoh, Atallah Mohammad Aljohani, Emad Ali Albadawi, Naweed SyedKhaleel Alzaman, Mekky M Abouzied, Hammad Ali Fadlalmola

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  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

10 authors.

Muayad Saud AlbadraniDepartment of Family and Community Medicine and Medical Education, College of Medicine, Taibah University, Madinah, Saudi Arabia. mbadrani@taibahu.edu.sa.
Muhammad Abubaker TobaiqiDepartment of Family and Community Medicine and Medical Education, College of Medicine, Taibah University, Madinah, Saudi Arabia.
Mohammed A MuaddiDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Jazan University, Jazan, Saudi Arabia.
Heba M EltahirDepartment of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Division of Biochemistry, Taibah University, Madinah, Saudi Arabia.
Esra Seddiq AbdohDepartment of Information and Learning Resources, Taibah University, Madinah, Saudi Arabia.
Atallah Mohammad AljohaniPreventive Medicine Administration, Madinah Health Cluster, Madinah, Saudi Arabia.
Emad Ali AlbadawiDepartment of Basic Medical Sciences, College of Medicine, Taibah University, Madinah, Saudi Arabia.
Naweed SyedKhaleel AlzamanDepartment of Medicine, College of Medicine, Taibah University, Madinah, Saudi Arabia.
Mekky M AbouziedDepartment of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Division of Biochemistry, Taibah University, Madinah, Saudi Arabia.
Hammad Ali FadlalmolaNursing College, Taibah University, Madinah, Saudi Arabia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe use of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS), including e-cigarettes, vape pens, hookah pens, e-cigars, and e-pipes, has grown in popularity worldwide, particularly among young individuals. However, these products are not without risks, as their emissions may contain harmful substances such as diacetyl (a flavoring agent linked to specific pulmonary problems in high concentrations), tobacco-specific nitrosamines, and volatile organic compounds with unknown long-term effects on lung health.

objectiveThis systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the prevalence of ENDS use among school and college students on a global scale.

methodsA comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases. Two researchers independently selected and extracted data from the identified studies. The pooled prevalence of ENDS use among school or college students was calculated using a random-effect meta-analysis.

resultsThe systematic review encompassed 146 studies with 4,189,145 subjects from 53 countries and six continents. The overall current prevalence of ENDS use was 10.2%, indicating a significant presence of this behavior among students. Moreover, ENDS current use was higher among males (10.2%) than females (7.5%). In comparison, the lifetime prevalence was 22.0%, indicating that a substantial portion of students have tried these products but do not continue to use them regularly.

conclusionOur meta-analysis reveals a significant prevalence of ENDS use among school and college students globally, with higher rates observed among males than females. The lifetime prevalence of ENDS indicates that many students have tried or are currently using these products. The current prevalence of ENDS use was 10.2%, with notable variations across different continents.

Indexed as

Electronic Nicotine Delivery SystemsGlobal HealthStudentsAdolescentFemaleHumansMalePrevalenceUniversitiesVapingYoung AdultElectronic cigaretteElectronic nicotineENDSPrevalenceVaping

Identifiers

PMID39604914
PMCPMC11603929

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.