|
|
| Line 155: |
Line 155: |
| *"It is literally true that they "find no evidence...", but that is because this study is completely ill-suited to drawing any policy conclusions about e-cigarettes and COPD. Despite hinting at the limitations of cross-sectional data, the authors draw a negative-sounding conclusion without addressing the key question of how respiratory health changes for a given smoker who uses e-cigarettes to quit or cut down once they are ill from smoking or as a way of preventing COPD." (Bates) | | *"It is literally true that they "find no evidence...", but that is because this study is completely ill-suited to drawing any policy conclusions about e-cigarettes and COPD. Despite hinting at the limitations of cross-sectional data, the authors draw a negative-sounding conclusion without addressing the key question of how respiratory health changes for a given smoker who uses e-cigarettes to quit or cut down once they are ill from smoking or as a way of preventing COPD." (Bates) |
| *Referring to: Bowler RP, Hansel NN, Jacobson S, Graham Barr R, Make BJ, Han MK, O'Neal WK, Oelsner EC, Casaburi R, Barjaktarevic I, Cooper C, Foreman M, Wise RA, DeMeo DL, Silverman EK, Bailey W, Harrington KF, Woodruff PG, Drummond MB; for COPDGene and SPIROMICS Investigators. Electronic Cigarette Use in US Adults at Risk for or with COPD: Analysis from Two Observational Cohorts. J Gen Intern Med. 2017 Dec;32(12):1315-1322. doi: 10.1007/s11606-017-4150-7. Epub 2017 Sep 7. PMID: 28884423; PMCID: PMC5698219. | | *Referring to: Bowler RP, Hansel NN, Jacobson S, Graham Barr R, Make BJ, Han MK, O'Neal WK, Oelsner EC, Casaburi R, Barjaktarevic I, Cooper C, Foreman M, Wise RA, DeMeo DL, Silverman EK, Bailey W, Harrington KF, Woodruff PG, Drummond MB; for COPDGene and SPIROMICS Investigators. Electronic Cigarette Use in US Adults at Risk for or with COPD: Analysis from Two Observational Cohorts. J Gen Intern Med. 2017 Dec;32(12):1315-1322. doi: 10.1007/s11606-017-4150-7. Epub 2017 Sep 7. PMID: 28884423; PMCID: PMC5698219. |
|
| |
| ===2016-2020: [https://pubpeer.com/publications/E2628F04937D0DBD870E115CB41C8B E-cigarettes and smoking cessation in real-world and clinical settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis]===
| |
| *Multiple Comments, many linking to more information
| |
| **"The most obvious issue is that the result is based on studies that have no bearing on whether e-cigarettes are effective or not. This is because vapers who successfully quit smoking were excluded and only those who failed to do so were retained. The studies were not at fault, they were just not set up to evaluate quit rates in smokers who try and not try vaping. The fault is with misinterpreting their results. The letter in LRM referenced above provides more details." (Hajek)
| |
| *[https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-meta-analysis-looking-at-e-cigarette-use-and-smoking-cessation/ Expert Reaction]
| |
| **“Publication of this study represents a major failure of the peer review system in this journal.” (West)
| |
| **"The current paper represents the latest attempt to bring together the existing literature on e-cigarettes for smoking cessation. While its breadth is to be commended, its conclusions (that e-cigarettes don’t work for smoking cessation) are at best tentative and at worst incorrect. The main reason for this is that attempting to directly compare the results of a body of literature that uses such a wide range of study designs and includes such variable (and often poorly defined) populations and outcomes is difficult, if not impossible. Some of the observational studies included in the review, in particular, suffer from a range of limitations that don’t allow us to reliably assess whether e-cigarettes help smokers quit." (Bauld)
| |
| **“Evidence from practice in England shows that two out of three smokers who combined e-cigarettes with additional expert support from a local stop smoking service quit successfully and while dual use is a complex issue, many vapers report using an e-cigarette to cut down and ultimately quit." (O'Connor)
| |
| **“This review is grossly misleading in my opinion. There are several problems with the way studies were selected and used, but the main flaw is simple, though not easy to spot. The studies that are presented as showing that vaping does not help people quit only recruited people who were currently smoking and asked them if they used e-cigarettes in the past. This means that people who used e-cigarettes and stopped smoking were excluded. The same approach would show that proven stop-smoking medications do not help or even undermine quitting." (Hajek)
| |
| **“This review is not scientific. The information included about two studies that I co-authored is either inaccurate or misleading. In addition, the authors have not included all previous studies they could have done in their meta-analysis. I believe the findings should therefore be dismissed. I am concerned at the huge damage this publication may have – many more smokers may continue smoking and die if they take from this piece of work that all evidence suggests e-cigarettes do not help you quit smoking; that is not the case." (McNeill)
| |
| *[https://clivebates.com/who-will-be-duped-by-error-strewn-meta-analysis-of-e-cigarette-studies/ Who will be duped by error-strewn ‘meta-analysis’ of e-cigarette studies?]
| |
| **"There are multiple challenges with interpreting the e-cigarette studies routinely appearing in the scientific literature – and over-interpretation is all too easy or even deliberate." (Bates)
| |
| *[https://web.archive.org/web/20151026231500/http://truthinitiative.org/sites/default/files/2015.06.30%20E-Cig%20FDA%20Workshop%20Docket%20FINAL.pdf Legacy Foundation (now Truth Initiative) submission to the FDA]
| |
| **"While the majority of the studies we reviewed are marred by poor measurement of exposures and unmeasured confounders, many of them have been included in a meta-analysis that claims to show that smokers who use e-cigarettes are less likely to quit smoking compared to those who do not.[73] This meta- analysis simply lumps together the errors of inference from these correlations. As described in detail above, quantitatively synthesizing heterogeneous studies is scientifically inappropriate and the findings of such meta-analyses are therefore invalid."
| |
| **"Findings from the studies with the strongest methodologies suggest that e-cigarettes are effective in helping adult smokers to quit or to reduce their cigarette consumption and that rates of smoking cessation with e-cigarettes are similar to rates of cessation with nicotine replacement therapy."
| |
| *[https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lanres/PIIS2213-2600(16)30024-8.pdf Correspondence]
| |
| **"There are other problems—such as selective inclusion of studies, and selective reporting of data from studies that were included —and limitations the authors acknowledge in the text but ignore in their conclusions. Detailed criticism of the methods is, however, not needed, because lumping incongruous studies together—which were mostly not designed to evaluate the efficacy of e-cigarettes, and contain no useful information on this topic unless misinterpreted—makes no scientific sense in the first place." (Hajek, McRobbie, Bullen)
| |
| *[https://antithrlies.com/2016/01/17/sunday-science-lesson-what-is-meta-analysis-and-why-was-glantzs-inherently-junk/ Sunday Science Lesson: What is “meta-analysis”? (and why was Glantz’s inherently junk?)]
| |
| **"Glantz’s meta-analysis is not just junk science because of details about the studies, though those are problems in themselves. It is junk science because there are probably not even two of the studies in his collection that are similar enough to average together, let alone all of them." (Phillips)
| |
| *Referring to: Kalkhoran S, Glantz SA. E-cigarettes and smoking cessation in real-world and clinical settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Respir Med. 2016 Feb;4(2):116-28. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(15)00521-4. Epub 2016 Jan 14. PMID: 26776875; PMCID: PMC4752870.
| |
|
| |
|
| ===2016: [https://pubpeer.com/publications/566A631490E2222E1E6DE4F44B6989 Chronic electronic cigarette exposure in mice induces features of COPD in a nicotine-dependent manner]=== | | ===2016: [https://pubpeer.com/publications/566A631490E2222E1E6DE4F44B6989 Chronic electronic cigarette exposure in mice induces features of COPD in a nicotine-dependent manner]=== |
