ReviewCentral European journal of urology2026
Comparison of carcinogen biomarkers in electronic cigarette users versus conventional cigarette users in the development of urothelial cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Central European journal of urology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Despite the increasing use of electronic cigarettes globally, limited understanding persists regarding their effects on urothelial cancer. This study aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing carcinogen exposure associated with urothelial cancer development in electronic and conventional cigarette users. Material and methods: The study was conducted through a systematic search of multiple databases adhering to PRISMA guidelines. Eligible articles were evaluated for quality using established scoring systems, and data were synthesized using a random effect model. Heterogeneity was assessed, and sensitivity analysis was conducted. Included carcinogen substances were identified using the Collaborative on Health and the Environment Toxicant and Disease Database, including their potential association with urothelial cancer. Results: The search identified 1,221 records, of which 14 observational studies involving 14,065 participants met the inclusion criteria. A total of 28 carcinogenic or potentially carcinogenic substances were detected in the urine of electronic cigarette users and compared with conventional cigarette users. These included compounds strongly associated with urothelial cancer (aromatic hydrocarbons and 2-naphthylamine), compounds with a limited association (tobacco-specific nitrosamines and metals), and compounds strongly associated with cancer in general (volatile organic compounds). The meta-analysis showed that only 2-hydroxyfluorene was significantly lower in electronic cigarette users compared with conventional cigarette users (SMD -0.53; 95% CI: from -0.60 to -0.46; p <0.00001). Other biomarkers - including cotinine, 1-hydroxypyrene, 2-naphthol, hydroxyfluorenes, NNAL, AAMA, and MHBMA - showed comparable concentrations between the two groups. Conclusions: Although several carcinogenic biomarkers appear at lower concentrations than in conventional cigarette users, multiple urothelial cancer-associated carcinogens remain detectable in the urine of electronic cigarette users, suggesting potential long-term carcinogenic risk.
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.