ReviewTobacco induced diseases2025
Evidence update on the respiratory health effects of vaping e-cigarettes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Tobacco induced diseases, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Toxicity and Appeal of Flavoured E-Cigarettes and Flavour Ban Outcomes: A Narrative Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn this review, we aimed to explore whether nicotine e-cigarette or vaping product use impact respiratory health.
methodsWe searched CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed and Cochrane library databases initially in January 2023 and updated the search in January 2024. We included peer-reviewed human, animal, cell/
resultsWe included 119 studies in the main analysis, and 5 in meta-analysis. Over half of the studies had low risk of bias. Non-smoker current vapers had higher incident risk of respiratory symptoms (relative risk, RR=1.90; 95% CI: 1.28-2.83) but statistically non-significant risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (RR=2.53; 95% CI: 0.96-6.67) compared to never users. They also had lower incident risk of respiratory symptoms compared to non-vaper current smokers (RR=0.75; 95% CI: 0.64-0.89) and dual users (dual use vs vaping, RR=1.26; 95% CI: 1.03-1.55). Dual users had higher risk of incidence of respiratory symptoms and prevalence of COPD compared to never users (RR=2.53; 95% CI: 1.44-4.45 and RR=3.86; 95% CI: 1.49-10.02, respectively), and the risk was statistically similar to non-vaper current smokers (RR=0.97; 95% CI: 0.84-1.14 and RR=1.15; 95% CI: 1.00-1.33, respectively). All meta-analysis findings were of 'very low' to 'low' certainty evidence. Of the studies not included in meta-analysis, we found 'moderate' certainty evidence of higher risk of respiratory symptoms, COPD, asthma, lung inflammation and damage in non-smoker current vapers compared to non-users, inconsistent findings on the risk of COVID-19 and other respiratory infections, and no significant association with e-cigarette associated lung injury.
conclusionsE-cigarettes are associated with harms to the respiratory system. Further longitudinal research with special attention to measuring effects in different e-cigarette user populations are warranted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.