Analysis of common methodological flaws in the highest cited e-cigarette epidemiology research
Cother Hajat,Emma Stein,Arielle Selya,Riccardo Polosa,CoEHAR study group,Salvatore Alaimo,Carmelina Daniela Anfuso,Ignazio Barbagallo,Francesco Basile,Sebastiano Battiato,Brahim Benhamou,Gaetano Bertino,Alberto Bianchi,Antonio G Biondi,Maria Luisa Brandi,Emma Cacciola,Rossella R Cacciola,Bruno Santi Cacopardo,Aldo E Calogero,Maria Teresa Cambria,Davide Campagna,Filippo Caraci,Agatino Cariola,Massimo Caruso,Pasquale Caponnetto,Adriana Ciancio,Fabio Cibella,Maurizio di Mauro,Jennifer di Piazza,Adriana di Stefano,Filippo Drago,Salvatore Failla,Rosario Faraci,Salvatore Ferlito,Margherita Ferrante,Alfredo Ferro,Giancarlo A Ferro,Francesco Frasca,Lucia Frittitta,Pio M Furneri,Antonio Gagliano,Giovanni Gallo,Fabio Galvano,Giuseppe Grasso,Francesca Guarino,Antonino Gulino,Emmanuele A Jannini,Sandro La Vignera,Giuseppe Lazzarino,Caterina Ledda,Rosalia Maria Leonardi,Giovanni Li Volti,Antonio Longo,Gabriella Lupo,Mario Malerba,Luigi Marletta,Guido Nicolosi,Francesco Nocera,Gea Oliveri Conti,Giuseppe Palazzo,Rosalba Parenti,Eugenio Pedullà,Alfredo Pulvirenti,Francesco Purrello,Francesco Rapisarda,Venerando Rapisarda,Renata Rizzo,Simone Ronsisvalle,Giuseppe Ronsisvalle,Martino Ruggieri,Maria C Santagati,Cristina Satriano,Laura Sciacca,Maria Salvina Signorelli,Marco Tatullo,Daniele Tibullo,Venera Tomaselli,Vladislav Volarevic,Luca Zanoli,Agata Zappalà
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11739-022-02967-1
Abstract: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.