Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39888213›Full record

SynthesisAddiction (Abingdon, England)2025

Electronic cigarettes and subsequent cigarette smoking in young people: A systematic review.

Rachna Begh, Monserrat Conde, Thomas R Fanshawe, Dylan Kneale, Lion Shahab, Sufen Zhu, Michael Pesko, Jonathan Livingstone-Banks, Nicola Lindson, Nancy A Rigotti and 5 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Addiction (Abingdon, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Interventions for smokeless tobacco use cessation.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

15 authors.

Rachna BeghNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Monserrat CondeNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9669-9180
Thomas R FanshaweNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Dylan KnealeEPPI Centre, Social Research Institute, UCL Institute of Education, University College London, London, UK.
Lion ShahabDepartment of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4033-442X
Sufen ZhuNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Michael PeskoDepartment of Economics, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9247-9703
Jonathan Livingstone-BanksNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3757-5591
Nicola LindsonNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2539-9268
Nancy A RigottiTobacco Research and Treatment Center, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Kate TudorNational Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts (NESTA), London, UK.
Dimitra KaleDepartment of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8845-7114
Sarah E JacksonDepartment of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5658-6168
Karen ReesClinical Trials Unit, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Jamie Hartmann-BoyceDepartment of Health Promotion and Policy, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA, USA.

Funding

The Impacts of Vaping Regulations on Perceptions, Access, Prices, and Tobacco UseR01DA045016 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI-COLUMBIA · PI Michael Pesko · 2018 to 2026
$4.2M
Cancer Research UK PPRCTAGPJT\10000NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA045016
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsTo assess the evidence for a relationship between the use of e-cigarettes and subsequent smoking in young people (≤29 years), and whether this differs by demographic characteristics.

methodsSystematic review with association direction plots (searches to April 2023). Screening, data extraction and critical appraisal followed Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome was the association between e-cigarette use, availability or both, and change in population rate of smoking in young people. The secondary outcomes were initiation, progression and cessation of smoking at individual level. We assessed certainty using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE).

resultsWe included 126 studies. For our primary outcome, there was very low certainty evidence (limited by risk of bias and inconsistency) suggesting that e-cigarette use and availability were inversely associated with smoking in young people (i.e. as e-cigarettes became more available and/or used more widely, youth smoking rates went down or, conversely, as e-cigarettes were restricted, youth smoking rates went up). All secondary outcomes were judged to be very low certainty due to very serious risk of bias. Data consistently showed direct associations between vaping at baseline and smoking initiation (28 studies) and smoking progression (5 studies). The four studies contributing data on smoking cessation had mixed results, precluding drawing any conclusion on the direction of association. There was limited information to determine whether relationships varied by sociodemographic characteristics.

conclusionAt an individual level, people who vape appear to be more likely to go on to smoke than people who do not vape; however, it is unclear if these behaviours are causally linked. Very low certainty evidence suggests that youth vaping and smoking could be inversely related.

Indexed as

Cigarette SmokingElectronic Nicotine Delivery SystemsVapingAdolescentAdultHumansSmoking CessationYoung Adulte‐cigarettesgateway hypothesissmokingsystematic reviewyoung adultsyouth

Identifiers

PMID39888213
PMCPMC12046492

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.