Association between Harmful and Addictive Perceptions of E-Cigarettes and E-Cigarette Use among Adolescents and Youth-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Recognising the association between the perceived risks of e-cigarettes and e-cigarette usage among youth is critical for planning effective prevention and intervention initiatives; thus, a systematic review and meta-analysis were performed. METHODS: Fourteen databases were searched for eligible studies from the Inception of database until March 2022 to examine the effect estimates of the association between perceptions of harmfulness and addictiveness and overall e-cigarette usage among adolescents and youth. RESULTS: The meta-analysis showed that in comparison to non-users, young people who were ever e-cigarette users were two times more likely to disagree that e-cigarettes are harmful (OR: 2.20, 95% CI: 1.41-3.43) and perceived e-cigarettes as less harmful than tobacco cigarettes (OR: 2.01, 95% CI 1.47-2.75). Youths who were ever e-cigarette users were also 2.3 and 1.8 times more likely to perceive e-cigarettes as less addictive (OR: 2.28, 95% CI: 1.81-2.88) or perceive e-cigarettes as more addictive (OR: 1.82, 95% CI: 1.22-2.73) than tobacco cigarettes, as compared with non-users. The subgroup analysis reported that adolescents were more likely to believe that e-cigarettes are less harmful than tobacco cigarettes, while youth users perceived otherwise. CONCLUSION: the risk perceptions of e-cigarettes are associated with e-cigarette use among adolescents and youth and could be the focus of health promotion to prevent and curb the uptake of e-cigarettes among young people.

Selecting Risk of Bias Tools for Observational Studies for a Systematic Review of Anthropometric Measurements and Dental Caries among Children.

In conducting a systematic review, assessing the risk of bias of the included studies is a vital step; thus, choosing the most pertinent risk of bias (ROB) tools is crucial. This paper determined the most appropriate ROB tools for assessing observational studies in a systematic review assessing the association between anthropometric measurements and dental caries among children. First, we determined the ROB tools used in previous reviews on a similar topic. Subsequently, we reviewed articles on ROB tools to identify the most recommended ROB tools for observational studies. Of the twelve ROB tools identified from the previous steps, three ROB tools that best fit the eight criteria of a good ROB tool were the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for cohort and case-control studies, and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) and the Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP) for a cross-sectional study. We further assessed the inter-rater reliability for all three tools by analysing the percentage agreement, inter-class correlation coefficient (ICC) and kappa score. The overall percentage agreements and reliability scores of these tools ranged from good to excellent. Two ROB tools for the cross-sectional study were further evaluated qualitatively against nine of a tool's advantages and disadvantages. Finally, the AHRQ and NOS were selected as the most appropriate ROB tool to assess cross-sectional and cohort studies in the present review.

Databases Selection in a Systematic Review of the Association between Anthropometric Measurements and Dental Caries among Children in Asia.

A comprehensive search for primary studies using a sufficient number and relevant databases is critical to minimise bias and increase the validity of a systematic review. We examined the frequency and choices of databases commonly used to provide an efficient search of primary studies for a systematic review of anthropometric measurements and dental caries among children in Asia. Twelve previous systematic reviews on a similar topic were retrieved from six databases. The frequency and choice of databases used by reviewers were determined from the methods sections. We also identified the lists of other databases usually searched in other reviews. Eligibility criteria for final databases selection were the database's scope, the topic of interest, design of the study, type of article, and the accessibility of the databases. Of the 77 databases identified, previous reviews on this topic used 21 databases, ranging from 2 to 12 databases in each review. Medline, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and PubMed were employed most frequently. Twenty-six databases were eligible and selected for the present review. Twelve were regional databases to provide comprehensive coverage of primary studies. A systematic approach in selecting appropriate databases for searching primary studies is paramount to reduce errors, ensure coverage, and increase the validity of systematic reviews' conclusions.