The prevalence of waterpipe tobacco smoking among the general and specific populations: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to systematically review the medical literature for the prevalence of waterpipe tobacco use among the general and specific populations. METHODS: We electronically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the ISI the Web of Science. We selected studies using a two-stage duplicate and independent screening process. We included cohort studies and cross sectional studies assessing the prevalence of use of waterpipe in either the general population or a specific population of interest. Two reviewers used a standardized and pilot tested form to collect data from each eligible study using a duplicate and independent screening process. We stratified the data analysis by country and by age group. The study was not restricted to a specific context. RESULTS: Of a total of 38 studies, only 4 were national surveys; the rest assessed specific populations. The highest prevalence of current waterpipe smoking was among school students across countries: the United States, especially among Arab Americans (12%-15%) the Arabic Gulf region (9%-16%), Estonia (21%), and Lebanon (25%). Similarly, the prevalence of current waterpipe smoking among university students was high in the Arabic Gulf region (6%), the United Kingdom (8%), the United States (10%), Syria (15%), Lebanon (28%), and Pakistan (33%). The prevalence of current waterpipe smoking among adults was the following: Pakistan (6%), Arabic Gulf region (4%-12%), Australia (11% in Arab speaking adults), Syria (9%-12%), and Lebanon (15%). Group waterpipe smoking was high in Lebanon (5%), and Egypt (11%-15%). In Lebanon, 5%-6% pregnant women reported smoking waterpipe during pregnancy. The studies were all cross-sectional and varied by how they reported waterpipe smoking. CONCLUSION: While very few national surveys have been conducted, the prevalence of waterpipe smoking appears to be alarmingly high among school students and university students in Middle Eastern countries and among groups of Middle Eastern descent in Western countries.

Survey instruments used in clinical and epidemiological research on waterpipe tobacco smoking: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The primary objective was to systematically review the medical literature for instruments validated for use in epidemiological and clinical research on waterpipe smoking. METHODS: We searched the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and ISI the Web of Science. We selected studies using a two-stage duplicate and independent screening process. We included papers reporting on the development and/or validation of survey instruments to measure waterpipe tobacco consumption or related concepts. Two reviewers used a standardized and pilot tested data abstraction form to collect data from each eligible study using a duplicate and independent screening process. We also determined the percentage of observational studies assessing the health effects of waterpipe tobacco smoking and the percentage of studies of prevalence of waterpipe tobacco smoking that have used validated survey instruments. RESULTS: We identified a total of five survey instruments. One instrument was designed to measure knowledge, attitudes, and waterpipe use among pregnant women and was shown to have internal consistency and content validity. Three instruments were designed to measure waterpipe tobacco consumption, two of which were reported to have face validity. The fifth instrument was designed to measure waterpipe dependence and was rigorously developed and validated. One of the studies of prevalence and none of the studies of health effects of waterpipe smoking used validated instruments. CONCLUSIONS: A number of instruments for measuring the use of and dependence on waterpipe smoking exist. Future research should study content validity and cross cultural adaptation of these instruments.

Effects of water-pipe smoking on lung function: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Although common in many Middle Eastern countries, water-pipe tobacco smoking, commonly known as water-pipe smoking (WPS), is increasingly popular in Western cultures. The primary objective of this study was to systematically review the effects of WPS on lung function. The secondary objective was to compare the effects of WPS and cigarette smoking on lung function. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review using the approach of the Cochrane Collaboration to search for, select, and abstract studies. We conducted two separate meta-analyses comparing water-pipe smokers with nonsmokers, and water-pipe smokers with cigarette smokers for each of three spirometric measurements (FEV1, FVC, and FEV1/ FVC). We used the standardized mean difference (SMD) to pool the results. RESULTS: Six cross-sectional studies were eligible for this review. Compared with no smoking, WPS was associated with a statistically significant reduction in FEV1 (SMD = -0.43; 95% CI, -0.58 to -0.29; equivalent to a 4.04% lower FEV1%), a trend toward lower FVC (SMD = -0.15; 95% CI, -0.34 to 0.04; equivalent to a 1.38% reduction in FVC%), and lower FEV1/ FVC (SMD = -0.46; 95% CI, -0.93 to 0.01; equivalent to a 3.08% lower FEV1/ FVC). Comparing WPS with cigarette smoking, there was no statistically significant difference in FEV1, FVC, and FEV1/ FVC. The six studies suffered from methodologic limitations. CONCLUSIONS: WPS negatively affects lung function and may be as harmful as cigarette smoking. WPS, therefore, is likely to be a cause of COPD.

The effects of waterpipe tobacco smoking on health outcomes: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: There is a need for a comprehensive and critical review of the literature to inform scientific debates about the public health effects of waterpipe smoking. The objective of this study was therefore to systematically review the medical literature for the effects of waterpipe tobacco smoking on health outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review using the Cochrane Collaboration methodology for conducting systematic reviews. We rated the quality of evidence for each outcome using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. RESULTS: Twenty-four studies were eligible for this review. Based on the available evidence, waterpipe tobacco smoking was significantly associated with lung cancer [odds ratio (OR) = 2.12; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.32-3.42], respiratory illness (OR = 2.3; 95% CI 1.1-5.1), low birth-weight (OR = 2.12; 95% CI 1.08-4.18) and periodontal disease (OR = 3-5). It was not significantly associated with bladder cancer (OR = 0.8; 95% CI 0.2-4.0), nasopharyngeal cancer (OR = 0.49; 95% CI 0.20-1.23), oesophageal cancer (OR = 1.85; 95% CI 0.95-3.58), oral dysplasia (OR = 8.33; 95% CI 0.78-9.47) or infertility (OR = 2.5; 95% CI 1.0-6.3) but the CIs did not exclude important associations. Smoking waterpipe in groups was not significantly associated with hepatitis C infection (OR = 0.98; 95% CI 0.80-1.21). The quality of evidence for the different outcomes varied from very low to low. CONCLUSION: Waterpipe tobacco smoking is possibly associated with a number of deleterious health outcomes. There is a need for high-quality studies to identify and quantify with confidence all the health effects of this form of smoking.