Tobacco control · 2022
Efficacy of smokeless tobacco for smoking cessation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
МетаанализСистематический обзорСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Stjepanović Daniel, Phartiyal Preeti, Leung Janni, Lim Carmen C W, Sun Tianze, Chung Jack Yiu Chak, Gartner Coral E, Hall Wayne D, Chan Gary C K
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Smoking remains prevalent in many countries despite rigorous tobacco control strategies. The use of Swedish snus, a type of low-nitrosamine smokeless tobacco, has been promoted as a tobacco harm reduction strategy.
DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: Three databases were searched for studies that assessed the effectiveness of snus in promoting smoking abstinence. A total of 28 studies were reviewed (5 randomised controlled trials (RCTs), 7 longitudinal and 16 cross-sectional studies).
DATA EXTRACTION: Separate meta-analyses were conducted by study type, pooling effect estimates where outcome measures and design were sufficiently comparable. Study details and quality assessment (Risk of Bias 2 for RCTs, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies) are provided for each study.
DATA SYNTHESIS: While the meta-analysis of RCTs did not show a significant association between snus use and smoking cessation (risk ratio (RR)=1.33, 95% CI 0.71 to 2.47 and RR=0.62, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.41), the results of the meta-analysis of longitudinal cohort studies (RR=1.38, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.82, p=0.022) and cross-sectional studies (OR=1.87, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.72, p=0.001) indicated that use of snus was associated with an increased likelihood of quitting or having quit smoking. There was significant heterogeneity in the cross-sectional studies, and leave-one-out analysis indicated that the longitudinal cohort results were driven by one study. Most studies examined were subject to an elevated risk of bias.
CONCLUSION: There is weak evidence for the use of snus for smoking cessation. Better RCTs and longitudinal studies are needed; meanwhile, existing cessation aids may be better placed than snus to promote abstinence.
DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: Three databases were searched for studies that assessed the effectiveness of snus in promoting smoking abstinence. A total of 28 studies were reviewed (5 randomised controlled trials (RCTs), 7 longitudinal and 16 cross-sectional studies).
DATA EXTRACTION: Separate meta-analyses were conducted by study type, pooling effect estimates where outcome measures and design were sufficiently comparable. Study details and quality assessment (Risk of Bias 2 for RCTs, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies) are provided for each study.
DATA SYNTHESIS: While the meta-analysis of RCTs did not show a significant association between snus use and smoking cessation (risk ratio (RR)=1.33, 95% CI 0.71 to 2.47 and RR=0.62, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.41), the results of the meta-analysis of longitudinal cohort studies (RR=1.38, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.82, p=0.022) and cross-sectional studies (OR=1.87, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.72, p=0.001) indicated that use of snus was associated with an increased likelihood of quitting or having quit smoking. There was significant heterogeneity in the cross-sectional studies, and leave-one-out analysis indicated that the longitudinal cohort results were driven by one study. Most studies examined were subject to an elevated risk of bias.
CONCLUSION: There is weak evidence for the use of snus for smoking cessation. Better RCTs and longitudinal studies are needed; meanwhile, existing cessation aids may be better placed than snus to promote abstinence.