Use of smokeless tobacco and risk of cardiovascular disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective The purpose of this study was to assess the risk of ischaemic heart disease (IHD) and stroke (non-fatal and fatal) among adult ever-users of smokeless tobacco (ST). Design The study design involved a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Methods Data sources for the review included key electronic databases and reference lists. Studies were included based on design (cohort or case-control), exposure (exclusive use of ST or adjusted for smoking), and outcome (non-fatal and fatal IHD and stroke). Data extraction included reported measures of association (risk ratios (RRs) or odds ratios (ORs)) between ever-use of ST (current or past) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) outcomes among non-smokers, and other study characteristics. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess study quality. Summary measures were estimated using random effects models. Results Twenty studies were included in the meta-analyses. Overall, significantly increased risk of IHD deaths (1.15, 95% confidence interval (CI: 1.01-1.30) and stroke deaths (1.39, 95% CI: 1.29-1.49) was found among ever-users of ST. We did not find an overall significant increased risk for IHD (1.14, 95% CI: 0.92-1.42) or stroke (1.01, 95% CI: 0.90-1.13). But geographical variations were marked for IHD, with significant positive association in Asian studies (1.40, 95% CI: 1.01-1.95), and the INTERHEART study, where ST data was mainly reported from Asia (2.23, 95% CI: 1.41-3.53). European studies did not show an increased risk for non-fatal CVD. Conclusion An association was found between ever use of ST and risk of fatal IHD and stroke, consistent with previous reviews. ST consumption also appears to significantly increase risk of non-fatal IHD among users in Asia, but not in Europe.
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 | 0.013 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.033 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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".