ReviewTobacco induced diseases2025
Electronic cigarettes and cardiovascular diseases: An updated systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Review in Tobacco induced diseases, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Risk Modulation by Electronic Cigarette Consumption in Cardiovascular Disease and Its Relevance in Cardiac Surgery-A Narrative Review.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2026Review
- Tobacco-Attributable Burden of Early-Onset Ischemic Heart Disease From 1990 to 2023: A Global Analysis Using GBD 2023 and Age-Period-Cohort Modeling.Clinical cardiology · 2026Article
- Exercise-based interventions for smoking cessation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of sport and health science · 2026Review
- Review
- Cardiovascular Consequences of E-Cigarettes: A New Challenge for Cardiologists.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- E-cigarette use and associated factors among adolescents and young adults in northern Thailand: evidence from a population-based household survey.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe association between electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) and the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains inconclusive. This study aims to compare CVD risk from the use of e-cigarettes, cigarettes, combined cigarette and e-cigarette use, and non-use.
methodsThis study is a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA). MEDLINE and Scopus databases (through February 2024) were used to identify eligible studies. Observational studies that investigated the effect of e-cigarettes on the risk of composite CVD, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke, compared to cigarette, dual use, or non-use, were included. NMA was applied to estimate relative effects (i.e. adjusted odds ratio, AOR) of e-cigarette, cigarette, and dual use, on composite CVD, MI, and stroke outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute tool for surveys and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for cohort studies.
resultsEleven adult population studies were eligible for review. E-cigarette, cigarette, and dual use were significantly associated with composite CVD outcomes. Pooled AORs (95% CI) were 1.31 (1.05-1.62) for e-cigarette, 1.57 (1.30-1.88) for cigarette, and 1.67 (1.37-2.03) for dual use. Additionally, former cigarette and former dual use significantly increased the risk of composite CVD outcomes, compared to non-use. The pooled AORs (95% CI) were 1.29 (1.05-1.59) for former cigarette, and 1.46 (1.03-2.08) for former dual use, while former e-cigarette use was not significantly associated with composite CVD endpoints. For MI and stroke outcomes, only cigarette and dual use were significantly associated with these events.
conclusionsCurrent e-cigarette, cigarette, and dual use were significantly associated with increased risk of composite CVD outcomes, while only cigarette and dual use significantly increased the risk of MI and stroke, compared to non-use. However, these findings were primarily based on cross-sectional data limiting the temporality of effect; additional prospective cohort studies are needed to confirm our findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.