Patterns of Use of e-Cigarettes and Their Respiratory Effects: Protocol for an Umbrella Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS)-e-cigarettes or vapes-have been shown to substantially reduce or eliminate many toxins compared with cigarette smoke, but simultaneously ENDS use also produces their own unique toxins. Yet the patterns of use among people who use ENDS are not homogeneous. Some people who use ENDS also smoke cigarettes (dual use). Other people who formerly smoked cigarettes are completely substituting ENDS (exclusive use). A small number of people who have never smoked cigarettes are using ENDS (naïve use of nicotine). Each of these patterns of use results in different exposures to toxins. Unfortunately, epidemiological studies routinely group together any ENDS use regardless of other tobacco use. OBJECTIVE: This umbrella review primarily aims to present all the evidence available on the respiratory effects of ENDS use by adults based on their pattern of use: dual use, exclusive use, and naïve use. With each of these patterns of use, are there benefits, no changes, or harmful effects on respiratory functioning? Our objective is to provide clinicians with a detailed analysis of how different patterns of ENDS use impact respiratory functioning and to point to the best sources of evidence. METHODS: This umbrella review follows the Methods for Overviews of Reviews framework and the PRIOR (Preferred Reporting Items for Overviews of Reviews) statement. Systematic reviews published since 2019 will be searched across 4 databases and 3 gray literature sources. Additional searches will include citation chasing, references lists, and referrals from respiratory specialists. The quality of included reviews will be evaluated using the AMSTAR2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) checklist. We will document biases in 3 areas: protocol deviations, biases from the Oxford Catalogue of Bias, and internal data discrepancies. Two reviewers will independently conduct the search and quality assessments. Our analysis will focus on reviews rated as moderate or high confidence by AMSTAR2. We will use the Vote Counting Direction of Effect method to manage expected data heterogeneity, assessing whether ENDS use is beneficial or detrimental, or has no effect on respiratory functions based on the pattern of use. RESULTS: The review is expected to be completed by December 2024. The database search was concluded in April 2024, and data extraction and bias assessment were completed in June 2024. The analysis phase is planned to be completed by October 2024. CONCLUSIONS: A thorough and comprehensive assessment of the evidence will better inform the contentious debate over the respiratory effects of ENDS providing much needed clarity by linking their effects to specific usage patterns. This analysis is particularly crucial in understanding the risks associated with continued cigarette smoking. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42024540034; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=540034. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/60325.
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.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,052 | 0,067 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,011 | 0,016 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,014 | 0,014 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,007 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,006 | 0,005 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,099 | 0,017 |
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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».