• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy >Assessing the evidence on the differential impact of menthol versus non-menthol cigarette use on smoking cessation in the U.S. population: a systematic review and meta-analysis
【24h】

Assessing the evidence on the differential impact of menthol versus non-menthol cigarette use on smoking cessation in the U.S. population: a systematic review and meta-analysis

机译：评估关于薄荷醇与非薄荷卷香烟的差异影响的证据，对美国人口中的吸烟停止：系统审查和荟萃分析

获取原文
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

The potential impact of menthol versus non-menthol cigarette use on smoking behaviors is an intensely scrutinized topic in the public health arena. To date, several general literature reviews have been conducted, but findings and conclusions have been discordant. This systematic review followed PRISMA guidelines to examine the Key Question, “Does menthol cigarette use have a differential impact on smoking cessation compared with non-menthol cigarette use?” Six databases—Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycInfo—were queried from inception to June 12, 2020. Articles comparing menthol versus non-menthol cigarette smokers in terms of at least one predefined smoking cessation outcome were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Evidence-Based Practice Center approach. A random-effects model utilizing the DerSimonian and Laird method to pool adjusted odds ratio was applied. Variations among pooled studies were assessed using Cochran’s Q statistic, and heterogeneity was quantified using the inconsistency index (I2). Forty-three demographically adjusted studies (22 rated “good”, 20 rated “fair”, and one study rated “poor” individual study quality) comparing menthol and non-menthol smokers were qualitatively synthesized across the following measures (study count; strength of evidence): duration of abstinence (2; low); quit attempts (15; insufficient); rate of abstinence/quitting (29; moderate); change in smoking quantity/frequency (5; insufficient); and, return to smoking/relapse (2; insufficient). Overall, the qualitative synthesis failed to show a consistent trend for an association between menthol cigarette use and smoking cessation across outcomes. Meta-analyses found no difference between menthol and non-menthol cigarette use and either quit attempts or abstinence. Given the lack of consistency or statistical significance in the findings—combined with a “low” overall strength of evidence grade, based on deficiencies of indirectness and inconsistency—no consistent or significant associations between menthol cigarette use and smoking cessation were identified. Recommendations for future studies include increased focus on providing longitudinal, adjusted data collected from standardized outcome measures of cessation to better inform long-term smoking cessation and menthol cigarette use. Such improvements should also be further considered in more methodologically rigorous systematic reviews characterized by objectivity, comprehensiveness, and transparency with the ultimate objective of better informing public health and policy decision making.
机译：Menthol对非薄荷醇的卷烟在吸烟行为的潜在影响是公共卫生竞技场中强烈审查的话题。迄今为止，已经进行了几次一般文学评论，但发现和结论不一致。这种系统审查遵循PRISMA指南来检查关键问题，“与非薄荷卷香烟使用相比，薄荷霍尔香烟使用对吸烟的差异影响？”六个数据库 - Cochrane中央寄存器受控试验，Cochrane数据库系统评论，摘要摘要数据库，效果，Embase和Psycinfo的摘要数据库 - 被征集到2020年6月12日的成立。比较Menthol与非Menthol香烟吸烟者的文章包括至少一个预定义戒烟结果的术语。使用原子能机构的医疗保健研究和优质证据实践中心方法评估偏见风险。应用了利用狄奥尼昂和莱尔德方法来播放池调整的差距比的随机效应模型。使用Cochran的Q统计评估汇总研究中的变异，并且使用不一致指数（I2）量化异质性。四十三个人口统计学调整研究（22份评为“好”，20级评为“公平”，以及一项研究评价的“个人学习质量差”）比较薄荷醇和非麦楼吸烟者在采取以下措施中进行了定性合成（研究计数;强度证据）：禁欲持续时间（2;低）;退出尝试（15;不足）;禁欲/戒烟率（29;中等）;减少吸烟量/频率（5;不足）;并回到吸烟/复发（2;不足）。总体而言，定性综合未能显示薄荷霍尔香烟用途和跨越结果的吸烟之间的关联的一致趋势。 Meta-Analyzes发现薄荷醇和非薄荷醇的卷烟或戒烟尝试或禁欲之间没有区别。鉴于在调查结果中缺乏一致性或统计学意义 - 结合“低”的证据年级的总体实力，基于间接和不一致的缺陷 - 没有确定薄荷醇香烟使​​用和吸烟之间的一致或重大协会。未来研究的建议包括增加从戒烟的标准化结果措施中收集的纵向调整数据，以更好地告知长期吸烟和薄荷卷香烟使用。在更有方法上严格的系统审查中，还应进一步考虑这种改进，其特征在于客观，全面性和透明度，与最终目标更好地通知公共卫生和政策决策。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号