Search

This study checks the hypothesis that sustainable well-being is a determinant factor of fertility through the application of a multiversal method based on the assumptions of Vibration of Effects (VoE) model of multiversal sampling on the Italian Equitable and Sustain-able Well-being (BES) dataset. For 48 social indicators of well-being, adopting the Province as statistical unit, the estimate of linear effect has been systematically sampled 1,024 times. This multiversal sampling allows to estimate the component of the hypothetical variability of the estimate of the effect size that depends on the theoretical choices of the analysis. This component is commonly underestimated, hidden, or ignored in regular multivariate analysis or classical bootstrapping. Results do not allow to claim that any of the 48 social indicators is a robust linear predictor of fertility. Indicators associated with high statistical significance are also at risk of misleading the causal relationship. Implications for policy-making and the future direction of the research on BES are discussed in the conclusive remarks.

Background In preparation for the 2021 revision of the European Union Tobacco Products Directive, the Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks (SCHEER) has posted its Preliminary Opinion on Electronic Cigarettes. They concluded that e-cigarettes only achieve a sub-optimal level of protection of human health. In this paper, we provide evidence that the Opinion’s conclusions are not adequately backed up by scientific evidence and did not discuss the potential health benefits of using alternative combustion-free nicotine-containing products as substitute for tobacco cigarettes. Methods Searches for articles were conducted in PubMed and by citation chasing in Google Scholar. Articles were also retrieved with a review of references in major publications. Primary data from World Health Organization surveys, the conclusions of reviews, and peer-reviewed non-industry studies were cited to address errors and omissions identified in the Opinion. Results The Opinion omitted reporting on the individual and population health benefits of the substitution of e-cigarettes (ENDS) for cigarette smoking. Alternative hypotheses to the gateway theory were not evaluated. Its assessment of cardiovascular risk is contradicted by numerous reviews. It cites ever-use data that do not represent current patterns of use. It did not report non-nicotine use. It presented erroneous statements on trends in ENDS prevalence. It over-emphasized the role of flavours in youth ENDS initiation. It did not discuss cessation in sufficient length. Conclusions For the delivery of a robust and comprehensive final report, the members of the Working Group of the Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks will need to consider (1) the potential health benefits of ENDS substitution for cigarette smoking, (2) alternative hypotheses and contradictory studies on the gateway effect, (3) its assessment of cardiovascular risk, (4) the measurements of frequency of use, (5) non-nicotine use, (6) the role of flavours, and (7) a fulsome discussion of cessation.

The 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.

Background: After the global spread of SARS-CoV-2, research has highlighted several aspects of the pandemic, focusing on clinical features and risk factors associated with infection and disease severity. However, emerging results on the role of smoking in SARS-CoV-2 infection susceptibility or COVID-19 outcomes are conflicting, and their robustness remains uncertain. Objective: In this context, this study aims at quantifying the proportion of SARS-CoV-2 antibody seroprevalence, studying the changes in antibody levels over time, and analyzing the association between the biochemically verified smoking status and SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods: The research design involves a 6-month prospective cohort study with a serial sampling of the same individuals. Each participant will be surveyed about their demographics and COVID-19–related information, and blood sampling will be collected upon recruitment and at specified follow-up time points (ie, after 8 and 24 weeks). Blood samples will be screened for the presence of SARS-CoV-2–specific antibodies and serum cotinine, being the latter of the principal metabolite of nicotine, which will be used to assess participants’ smoking status. Results: The study is ongoing. It aims to find a higher antibody prevalence in individuals at high risk for viral exposure (ie, health care personnel) and to refine current estimates on the association between smoking status and SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19. Conclusions: The added value of this research is that the current smoking status of the population to be studied will be biochemically verified to avoid the bias associated with self-reported smoking status. As such, the results from this survey may provide an actionable metric to study the role of smoking in SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 outcomes, and therefore to implement the most appropriate public health measures to control the pandemic. Results may also serve as a reference for future clinical research, and the methodology could be exploited in public health sectors and policies. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/32285 JMIR Res Protoc 2021;10(11):e32285