Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Correction: electronic nicotine delivery systems and/or electronic non-nicotine delivery systems for tobacco smoking cessation or reduction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Statistics from Altmetric.com

El Dib R, Suzumura EA, Akl EA, et al. Electronic nicotine delivery systems and/or electronic non-nicotine delivery systems for tobacco smoking cessation or reduction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open 2017;7:e012680. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012680.

The folllowing amendments were considered to the original version of this article.

The following paragraph was added in the ‘Strengths and limitations’ subheading under ‘DISCUSSION’ section: ‘We usually conduct worst-case sensitivity analysis when there are significant results. However, because we noticed a possible increase in smoking cessation with ENDS (Figure 5) for cessation smoking, we have decided to conduct a worst-case sensitivity analysis to test the robustness of our findings.’

In Table 6,

  • The first row should be read as ‘Tobacco smoking cessation’ instead of ‘Mortality’ and ‘Reduction in cigarette use of at least 50%’ instead of ‘Renal insufficiency’. Also, Tobacco smoking cessation refers to OR.

  • The header of eighth column should read as ‘Relative risk and odds ratio (95% CI)’ instead of ‘Relative risk (95% CI)’.

In table 7, subheading of the seventh column should read ‘Odds ratio (95% CI)’ instead of ‘Relative risk (95% CI)’.

The following footnote is added in both tables 6 and 7:

CI: confidence interval.

In the ‘Data synthesis and statistical analysis’ section under ‘METHODS’, the below statement has been added in the 3nd paragraph:

After calculating pooled relative effects, we also calculated absolute effects and 95% CI. For each outcome, we multiplied the pooled RR and its 95% CI by the median probability of that outcome. We obtained the median probability from the control groups of the available randomised trials. When it is not possible, we obtained the median probability from the cohort studies. We planned to perform separate analyses for comparisons with interventions consisting of ENDS and/or ENNDS and each type of control interventions with known different effects (no smoking cessation aid; alternative non-electronic smoking cessation aid including NRT and alternative electronic smoking cessation aid (ENDS or ENNDS)). For meta-analyses, we used 6 months data or the nearest follow-up to 6 months available.

The below statement has been added in the Acknowledgements section:

We would also like to thank Dr Aravind Gandhi Periyasamy for bringing these mistakes to our attention in order to issue an erratum rectifying.

View Abstract

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Linked Articles