The Schroeder Institute for Tobacco Research and Policy Studies, Truth Initiative, Washington, DC, USA.
Department of Health, Behavior and Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Addiction. 2018 Mar;113(3):391-404. doi: 10.1111/add.14020. Epub 2017 Oct 3.
To propose a hierarchy of methodological criteria to consider when determining whether a study provides sufficient information to answer the question of whether e-cigarettes can facilitate cigarette smoking cessation or reduction.
A PubMed search to 1 February 2017 was conducted of all studies related to e-cigarettes and smoking cessation or reduction.
Australia, Europe, Iran, Korea, New Zealand and the United States.
91 articles.
Coders organized studies according to six proposed methodological criteria: (1) examines outcome of interest (cigarette abstinence or reduction), (2) assesses e-cigarette use for cessation as exposure of interest, (3) employs appropriate control/comparison groups, (4) ensures that measurement of exposure precedes the outcome, (5) evaluates dose and duration of the exposure and (6) evaluates the type and quality of the e-cigarette used.
Twenty-four papers did not examine the outcomes of interest. Forty did not assess the specific reason for e-cigarette use as an exposure of interest. Twenty papers did not employ prospective study designs with appropriate comparison groups. The few observational studies meeting some of the criteria (duration, type, use for cessation) triangulated with findings from three randomized trials to suggest that e-cigarettes can help adult smokers quit or reduce cigarette smoking.
Only a small proportion of studies seeking to address the effect of e-cigarettes on smoking cessation or reduction meet a set of proposed quality standards. Those that do are consistent with randomized controlled trial evidence in suggesting that e-cigarettes can help with smoking cessation or reduction.
提出一个方法学标准层次,用于确定一项研究是否提供了足够的信息来回答电子烟是否有助于戒烟或减少吸烟的问题。
对截至 2017 年 2 月 1 日的所有与电子烟和戒烟或减少吸烟相关的研究进行了 PubMed 搜索。
澳大利亚、欧洲、伊朗、韩国、新西兰和美国。
91 篇文章。
编码人员根据六个拟议的方法学标准对研究进行了组织:(1)检查感兴趣的结果(戒烟或减少吸烟),(2)评估电子烟作为感兴趣的暴露因素的使用情况,(3)采用适当的对照/比较组,(4)确保暴露的测量先于结果,(5)评估暴露的剂量和持续时间,(6)评估所使用的电子烟的类型和质量。
24 篇论文没有检查感兴趣的结果。40 篇论文没有评估电子烟使用的具体原因作为感兴趣的暴露因素。20 篇论文没有采用具有适当对照组的前瞻性研究设计。少数符合部分标准(持续时间、类型、用于戒烟)的观察性研究与三项随机试验的结果相吻合,表明电子烟可以帮助成年吸烟者戒烟或减少吸烟。
只有一小部分旨在评估电子烟对戒烟或减少吸烟效果的研究符合一组拟议的质量标准。那些符合标准的研究与随机对照试验的证据一致,表明电子烟可以帮助戒烟或减少吸烟。