4.5 Review

Global burden of all-cause and cause-specific mortality due to smokeless tobacco use: systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

TOBACCO CONTROL
卷 27, 期 1, 页码 35-42

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2016-053302

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives To systematically review and meta-analyse the studies investigating the association between smokeless tobacco (SLT) use and all-cause mortality and cause-specific mortality outcomes among adult users of SLT and estimate the number of attributable deaths worldwide. Methods Random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate the pooled risk of death due to SLT use. Population attributable fractions were derived and used to calculate the number of attributable deaths. Observational studies published upto 2015 were identified through MEDLINE, IndMED, Google Scholar and other databases. Data on the prevalence of SLT use was obtained from latest reports or national surveys. Data on the disease burden were obtained from the Global Burden of Disease Study. Hospital-based or community-based case-control and cohort studies that adjusted for the smoking status were included. Results 16 studies that provided estimates for mortality due to all cause, all cancer, upper aerodigestive tract (UADT) cancer, stomach cancer, cervical cancer, ischaemic heart disease (IHD) and stroke were included. A significant association was found for mortality due to all cause (1.22; 1.11-1.34), all cancer (1.31; 1.16-1.47), UADT cancer (2.17; 1.47-3.22), stomach cancer (1.33; 1.12-1.59), cervical cancer (2.07; 1.64-2.61), IHD (1.10; 1.04-1.17) and stroke (1.37; 1.24-1.51). Subgroup analysis showed major regional differences. Globally, the number of attributable deaths from all-cause mortality was 652 494 (234 008-1 081 437), of which 88% was borne by the South-East Asian region. Conclusions SLT is responsible for a large number of deaths worldwide with the South-East Asian region bearing a substantial share of the burden.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据