The effects of waterpipe tobacco smoking on health outcomes: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis: Table 1.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.040 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".