Effects of Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems Substitution on Body Weight Status: Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Weight gain following smoking cessation is a well-documented concern, often attributed to the absence of nicotine's metabolic influence. The adoption of Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (ENDS) has been used to achieve smoking cessation, with claims of aiding weight control. However, existing reviews present conflicting conclusions on ENDS' impact on weight status, necessitating a rigorous evaluation. OBJECTIVE: We aim to conduct a systematic review with meta-analysis to assess the actual impact of ENDS on weight status in individuals who have ceased or reduced conventional smoking. The primary goal is to provide clinicians with evidence-based insights into the potential effects of ENDS use as a smoking substitute on weight control. METHODS: Adhering to PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols) guidelines, our systematic review will analyze randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials, clinical trials (quasi-experimental), and prospective or retrospective cohort studies on the weight status effects of ENDS among individuals who have either quit or reduced smoking. Searches will include PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library, covering the period from 2010 to January 2024. A gray literature search and supplementary searches will be performed. Data will be extracted independently by 2 reviewers and quality assessments will be conducted concurrently. Quality assessments will use Joanna Briggs Institute tools, 2020 version, along with bias assessments for internal validity and reporting bias based on the Catalogue of Bias. The included studies will be examined for any internal data reporting discrepancies by using Puljak's checklist. Meta-analysis and subgroup analyses (ie, general ENDS usage, ENDS use coupled with a reduction in smoking exceeding 50%, and exclusive ENDS use for achieving smoking cessation) are planned. Certainty of evidence will be evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. RESULTS: The protocol has been registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023494974) and the entire systematic review is expected to be completed by April 2024. The main goal of this review is to retrieve all current human research studies investigating the influence of ENDS on weight management among individuals who have quit or reduced smoking. Furthermore, the review will assess the quality of these studies and examine potential biases to identify the most dependable evidence available. Dissemination strategies will include traditional journal publications, social media announcements, and a white paper. The latter, available for download and distributed at conferences, aims to reach a broad audience, including clinicians and ENDS users. CONCLUSIONS: The review will address the importance of informing health care professionals and patients about the current and robust evidence regarding the effects of transitioning to ENDS for smoking cessation on weight status. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42023494974; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=494974. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/56324.
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 | 0.069 | 0.098 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.029 | 0.039 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.065 | 0.007 |
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".