The effects of waterpipe tobacco smoking on health outcomes: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis: Table 1.
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background and aims: A systematic review conducted in 2008 found significant associations between waterpipe tobacco smoking and lung cancer, respiratory disease, periodontal disease and low birthweight. Since then, a number of relevant studies have been published. The objective of this study was to update the systematic review on the effects of waterpipe tobacco smoking on health outcomes. Methods: In May 2015 we electronically searched the following databases with no date restrictions: MEDLINE, EMBASE and the ISI Web of Science using a detailed search strategy with no language restrictions. We also screened the references' lists of the included studies. We included cohort, case-control and cross-sectional studies, and excluded case reports, conference abstracts, editorials and reviews. We excluded studies not conducted in humans, assessing physiological outcomes, not distinguishing waterpipe tobacco smoking from other forms of smoking or not reporting association measures. We assessed risk of bias for each included study and conducted meta-analyses for each of the outcomes of interest. Results: We identified 50 eligible studies. We found that waterpipe tobacco smoking was significantly associated with: respiratory diseases [COPD; odds ratio (OR) = 3.18, 95% confidence interval CI = 1.25, 8.08; bronchitis OR = 2.37, 95% CI = 1.49, 3.77; passive waterpipe smoking and wheeze OR) = 1.97, 95% CI = 1.28, 3.04]; oral cancer OR = 4.17, 95% CI = 2.53, 6.89; lung cancer OR = 2.12, 95% CI = 1.32, 3.42; low birthweight (OR = 2.39, 95% CI = 1.32, 4.32); metabolic syndrome (OR 1.63-1.95, 95% CI = 1.25, 2.45); cardiovascular disease (OR = 1.67, 95% CI = 1.25, 2.24); and mental health (OR 1.30-2.4, 95% CI = 1.20, 2.80). Waterpipe tobacco smoking was not significantly associated with: oesophageal cancer (OR = 4.14, 95% CI = 0.93, 18.46); worse quality of life scores [standardized mean difference (SMD) = -0.16, 95% CI = -0.66, 0.34]; gastric carcinoma (OR = 2.16, 95% CI = 0.72, 6.47); bladder cancer (OR = 1.25, 95% CI = 0.99, 1.57); prostate cancer (OR = 7.00, 95% CI = 0.90, 56.90); hepatitis C infection (OR = 0.98, 95%0.80, 1.21); periodontal disease (OR = 3.00, 5.00); gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (OR = 1.25, 95% CI = 1.01, 1.56); nasopharyngeal carcinoma (OR = 0.49, 95% CI = 0.20, 1.23); bladder cancer (OR = 1.25, 95% CI = 0.99, 1.57); infertility (OR = 2.50, 95% CI = 1.00, 6.30); and mortality (OR = 1.15, 95% CI = 0.93, 1.43). Conclusions: There is accumulating evidence about the association of waterpipe tobacco smoking with a growing number of health outcomes.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,011 | 0,007 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,010 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle