Analysis of common methodological flaws in the highest cited e-cigarette epidemiology research

Author:

Hajat Cother,Stein Emma,Selya Arielle,Polosa RiccardoORCID,Alaimo Salvatore,Anfuso Carmelina Daniela,Barbagallo Ignazio,Basile Francesco,Battiato Sebastiano,Benhamou Brahim,Bertino Gaetano,Bianchi Alberto,Biondi Antonio G,Brandi Maria Luisa,Cacciola Emma,Cacciola Rossella R,Cacopardo Bruno Santi,Calogero Aldo E,Cambria Maria Teresa,Campagna Davide,Caraci Filippo,Cariola Agatino,Caruso Massimo,Caponnetto Pasquale,Ciancio Adriana,Cibella Fabio,Mauro Maurizio di,Piazza Jennifer di,Stefano Adriana di,Drago Filippo,Failla Salvatore,Faraci Rosario,Ferlito Salvatore,Ferrante Margherita,Ferro Alfredo,Ferro Giancarlo A,Frasca Francesco,Frittitta Lucia,Furneri Pio M,Gagliano Antonio,Gallo Giovanni,Galvano Fabio,Grasso Giuseppe,Guarino Francesca,Gulino Antonino,Jannini Emmanuele A,Vignera Sandro La,Lazzarino Giuseppe,Ledda Caterina,Leonardi Rosalia Maria,Volti Giovanni Li,Longo Antonio,Lupo Gabriella,Malerba Mario,Marletta Luigi,Nicolosi Guido,Nocera Francesco,Conti Gea Oliveri,Palazzo Giuseppe,Parenti Rosalba,Pedullà Eugenio,Pulvirenti Alfredo,Purrello Francesco,Rapisarda Francesco,Rapisarda Venerando,Rizzo Renata,Ronsisvalle Simone,Ronsisvalle Giuseppe,Ruggieri Martino,Santagati Maria C,Satriano Cristina,Sciacca Laura,Signorelli Maria Salvina,Tatullo Marco,Tibullo Daniele,Tomaselli Venera,Volarevic Vladislav,Zanoli Luca,Zappalà Agata,

Abstract

AbstractThe prevalence of vaping, also known as using e-cigarettes, vapes and vape pens, has prompted a demand for reliable, evidence-based research. However, published literature on the topic of vaping often raises concerns, characterized by serious flaws and a failure to adhere to accepted scientific methodologies. In this narrative review, we analyze popular vaping studies published in medical journals that purport to evaluate the association of vaping and smoking cessation, smoking initiation or health outcomes. We analyzed 24 included studies to identify the questions they claimed to address, stated methods, manner of implementation, discussions, and stated conclusions. After critical appraisal, we noted a multiplicity of flaws in these studies, and identified patterns as to the nature of such flaws. Many studies lacked a clear hypothesis statement: to the extent that a hypothesis could be inferred, the methods were not tailored to address the question of interest. Moreover, main outcome measures were poorly identified, and data analysis was further complicated by failure to control for confounding factors. The body of literature on “gateway” theory for the initiation of smoking was particularly unreliable. Overall, the results and discussion contained numerous unreliable assertions due to poor methods, including data collection that lacked relevance, and assertions that were unfounded. Many researchers claimed to find a causal association while not supporting such findings with meaningful data: the discussions and conclusions of such studies were, therefore, misleading. Herein, we identify the common flaws in the study design, methodology, and implementation found in published vaping studies. We present our summary recommendations for future vaping research. Our aim is to prompt future researchers to adhere to scientific methods to produce more reliable findings and conclusions in the field of vaping research.

Funder

Foundation for a Smoke-Free World

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

Emergency Medicine,Internal Medicine

Cited by 7 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3