State of Vape: Does This Cochrane Review Dispel Vaping Myths?

If you’re a vaper and regularly purchase products from eJuices.com, you already know that vaping is an alternative method of consuming nicotine that has gained both popularity and criticism over the past few years. In the past year alone, vaping has been erroneously tied to several health conditions such as EVALI and COVID-19. Recently, a Cochrane review has compiled a number of studies to provide the public with a thorough review of information related to different methods of nicotine consumption, including cigarette smoking, vaping, and nicotine replacement therapies (NRTs).

DISCLAIMER: The eJuices.com team is not promoting vaping over alternative forms of nicotine use, nor do we offer medical advice regarding nicotine usage. This article is for informational purposes only. All opinions expressed within are that of the author and should not be used to determine whether or not you should adjust your nicotine use.

What Is A Cochrane Review?

A Cochrane review is a meta-analysis or systematic review used to determine guidelines in medical settings and clinical practice. These are considered the highest quality medical studies since they review trends and findings of multiple previous studies. In this case, the aggregated studies compare vaping to smoking and to NRTs. Cochrane reviews are widely used in the international medical community.

The study was led by Jamie Hartmann-Boyce of the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom and could have long-term implications on how those in the medical field approach vaping. It could also have effects on how vape legislation and regulations are written or modified in the near future.

Why Does This Matter?

The majority of medical studies are composed of randomized controlled trials, qualitative studies, case studies, cohort studies, or expert opinions of medical professionals. Only a small amount of medical studies are meta-analyses or systematic reviews. Having a study on vaping that is classified as a meta-analysis or systematic review gives such a study a huge boost in credibility among medical professionals. While there have been medical studies that have been debunked and required a retraction (most famously Andrew Wakefield’s fraudulent study on linking vaccines to autism in The Lancet), these studies are now rigorously peer-reviewed before being published in a medical journal and require scrutiny from some of the top medical professionals around the world. 

Having passed such a test and being elevated to the top of the hierarchy of evidence for medical professionals could dispel the myths around vaping. Much of the fight to ban flavors and vaping altogether is largely based on misinformation and inaccurate comparisons to other nicotine consumption methods. As we previously mentioned, there have also been attempts to link vaping to COVID-19.

The current head of the FDA, Dr. Stephen Hahn, has a background in cancer treatment and may take notice of such a study since he had promised to look at the “science and evidence” surrounding vaping. While we cannot provide guidance on how you should consume nicotine, we encourage you to take action on behalf of the vaping industry.