Browsing by Author "Curtin, Geoffrey M"

Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Association between E-cigarette Use among Cigarette Smokers and Quit Attempts Made to Abstain from Cigarette Smoking.
    (American journal of health behavior, 2022-09) Kim, Mimi M; Steffensen, Isabella; Miguel, Red D; Carlone, Julien; Curtin, Geoffrey M
    Objective: Following AMSTAR 2 and PRISMA guidelines, in this synthesis of evidence we sought to identify and characterize any associations between e-cigarette use among cigarette smokers and cigarette smoking quit attempts. Methods: We queried 3 databases from January 1, 2007 to January 5, 2021. Search results were screened using the PICOS review method. Included studies examined e-cigarette use and cigarette smoking quit attempts across e-cigarette use statuses. Risk of bias was assessed according to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Evidence-Based Practice Center approach. Finally, 4 random-effects models compared e-cigarette users and non- e-cigarette-users in terms of past year and prospective (6 to 12 months) cigarette smoking quit attempts. Results: We qualitatively synthesized 17 adjusted studies for this review. Two meta-analyses showed past year quit attempts were significantly associated with current e-cigarette users and 2 prospective data analyses found no significant association. Conclusions: The results of the meta- analyses emphasize temporality in the association between e-cigarette use and cigarette smoking quit attempts. Numerous methodological limitations, including inadequate definitions of e-cigarette use and non-adjustment for confounding variables, limit the confidence in conclusions that can be drawn on the causal association between e-cigarette use and cigarettes smoking quit attempts.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Assessing the Evidence on the Differential Impact of Menthol versus Non-menthol Cigarette Use on Initiation and Progression to Regular Smoking: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
    (American journal of health behavior, 2022-04) Kim, Mimi M; Curtin, Geoffrey M
    Background: Despite numerous assessments of the public health impact of menthol cigarettes, a rigorous synthesis related to menthol cigarettes and behavioral outcomes is lacking. This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the question: Does menthol cigarette use have a differential impact on initiation and progression to regular smoking compared to non-menthol cigarette use? Methods: We consulted 6 databases from their inception to October 15, 2021. We included articles comparing menthol versus non-menthol smokers among 4 predefined smoking initiation and progression outcomes. We assessed risk of bias was using the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Evidence-Based Practice Center approach. We applied a random-effects model to pool adjusted odds ratios. Results: We qualitatively synthesized 16 adjusted studies across the outcomes. Results from one meta-analysis suggested no difference between menthol and non-menthol smokers in likelihood to report daily versus non-daily smoking. Conclusion: This systematic review and meta-analysis did not identify a consistent, statistically significant, or differential association between menthol use and progression to regular smoking. Varying definitions of outcome measures and lack of longitudinal evidence limited the confident conclusions that could be drawn from this evidence base.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    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.
    (Substance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy, 2021-08) Kim, Mimi M; Kim, Mimi M; Curtin, Geoffrey M

    Background

    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?"

    Methods

    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).

    Results

    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.

    Conclusions

    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.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Assessing the Evidence on the Differential Impact of Menthol versus Non-menthol Cigarette Use on Smoking Dependence in the US Population: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
    (American journal of health behavior, 2022-09) Kim, Mimi M; Curtin, Geoffrey M
    Background: Menthol's effect on cigarette smoking behaviors is an intensely scrutinized US public health issue. This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the question: Does menthol cigarette use have a differential impact on smoking dependence compared with non-menthol cigarette use? Methods: We consulted 6 databases from inception to October 15, 2021. We included articles comparing menthol versus non-menthol cigarette smokers against predefined smoking dependence outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed using the AHRQ Evidence-Based Practice Center approach. We applied a random-effects model to pool adjusted odds ratios. Results: We synthesized 37 demographically adjusted studies. Meta-analytic results suggested non-menthol smokers were equally/more likely to report daily versus non-daily smoking; menthol use was associated with needing a cigarette within one hour; cigarettes per day was not associated with menthol use; menthol use was associated with a low (vs high) Heaviness of Smoking Index score; and results were either non-significant or associated menthol use with lower TTFC. Conclusions: Despite consistently good or fair quality adjusted studies across several measures, results were discordant depending on measures used and means of measurement. Overall, the evidence is insufficient to draw clear conclusions on a differential association between menthol (vs non-menthol) cigarette use and smoking dependence.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Reporting and methodological quality of systematic literature reviews evaluating the associations between e-cigarette use and cigarette smoking behaviors: a systematic quality review.
    (Harm reduction journal, 2021-11) Kim, Mimi M; Kim, Mimi M; Pound, Lynley; Steffensen, Isabella; Curtin, Geoffrey M

    Introduction

    Several published systematic reviews have examined the potential associations between e-cigarette use and cigarette smoking, but their methodological and/or reporting quality have not yet been assessed. This systematic quality review followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and AMSTAR (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews) 2 to evaluate the quality of systematic reviews investigating potential associations between e-cigarette use and cigarette smoking.

    Materials and methods

    PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO were searched from 01 January 2007 to 24 June 2020. Methodological quality was assessed using AMSTAR 2, and reporting quality was assessed using PRISMA guidelines.

    Results

    Of 331 potentially relevant systematic reviews, 20 met predefined inclusion criteria. Most reviews (n = 15; 75%) reported on e-cigarette use and cigarette smoking cessation, while three reported on e-cigarette use and cigarette smoking initiation (15%); and two reported on cigarette smoking initiation and cessation (10%). According to AMSTAR 2 guidelines, 18 of the 20 reviews (90%) were "critically low" in overall confidence of the results, while two were ranked "low." Additionally, reporting quality varied across the reviews, with only 60% reporting at least half of the PRISMA items.

    Discussion

    Methodological limitations were identified across reviews examining potential associations between e-cigarette use and cigarette smoking behaviors, indicating that findings from these reviews should be interpreted with caution.

    Conclusions

    Future systematic reviews in this field should strive to adhere to AMSTAR 2 and PRISMA guidelines, to provide high quality syntheses of the available data with transparent and complete reporting.