MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414601085 · doi:10.2196/74949

Vascular and Cardiovascular Outcomes of Smoking Cessation and Switching to Electronic Cigarette Use: Protocol for a Systematic Review of Prospective Studies

2025· review· en· W4414601085 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Giusy Rita Maria La Rosa, Giulio Geraci, Davide Capodanno, Takao Ohki, George Casella, Riccardo Polosa

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Health and Disease Prevention
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSmoking cessationProtocol (science)Prospective cohort studyElectronic cigaretteCigarette smokingMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Despite the well-documented adverse health effects of tobacco smoking, it remains prevalent worldwide. Chronic tobacco smoking is associated with significant cardiovascular effects, including an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and vascular dysfunction. In recent years, the use of electronic cigarettes (ECs) has increased, with many former tobacco cigarette smokers switching to ECs to aid in smoking cessation. To date, no systematic review has synthesized prospective evidence on key vascular and cardiovascular outcomes among adult smokers who quit or switch to ECs, with the specific aim of identifying early and clinically meaningful indicators of vascular recovery. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aims to summarize the current prospective studies on the vascular effects of switching to exclusive EC use and the overall effects of smoking cessation on regular tobacco cigarette smokers. The review will focus, in particular, on early indicators of vascular improvement, such as measures of vascular function, including arterial stiffness and endothelial function, as well as on heart rate, blood pressure, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, sudden cardiovascular death, and acute heart failure. METHODS: The review will be reported following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. A comprehensive search was performed in PubMed and Scopus on January 12, 2025, without restrictions on the publication date. Studies will be included if they focus on cardiovascular outcomes, with study designs, including clinical trials (randomized controlled trials, observational studies), prospective cohort studies, and case-control studies. Studies involving regular smokers, aged 18 years and older, and those reporting on smoking cessation or switching to ECs will be considered. Data will be extracted using a standardized form and synthesized qualitatively. Risk of bias will be assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute's critical appraisal tools, with results informing sensitivity analyses and interpretation. RESULTS: As of January 2025, the preliminary search retrieved 1479 records across PubMed and Scopus. At the time of this protocol's publication, the first manuscript on vascular function outcomes was completed in July 2025 and is currently under peer review. Each subsequent review will include an updated search before completion. CONCLUSIONS: This review will provide a comprehensive landscape of current literature on the long-term vascular effects of smoking cessation and switching to exclusive EC use. The findings will help identify early indicators of vascular damage reversal, gaps in the current evidence base, and inform future research directions. By disseminating the results through peer-reviewed journals, conferences, and digital platforms, the review aims to enhance the understanding of smoking cessation's impact on vascular health and support public health efforts in reducing tobacco-related harm. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD420251016878; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251016878. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/74949.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.069
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.079
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.366

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0690.079
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0070.006
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0230.028
Bibliometrics0.0140.015
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0070.007
Open science0.0050.006
Research integrity0.0070.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0630.008

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.

Opus teacher head0.224
GPT teacher head0.586
Teacher spread0.362 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research ProtocolsSame topicCardiovascular Health and Disease PreventionFrench-language works237,207