A newly published peer-reviewed analysis in Internal and Emergency Medicine calls into question the scientific integrity of a frequently cited meta-analysis that claimed e-cigarettes pose health risks comparable to those of traditional tobacco smoking.

The original meta-analysis, authored by Glantz et al., has significantly influenced public and political perceptions of vaping. However, the new study identifies serious methodological flaws that undermine the credibility of those conclusions.

✅ The Glantz analysis grouped unrelated health outcomes – including erectile dysfunction and fatal cardiovascular events – into a single risk framework.
✅ It included cross-sectional studies that lacked clear data on when vaping began relative to disease onset.
✅ It failed to account for changes in smoking or vaping behavior during longitudinal studies, violating basic principles of causality.

“The findings from the Glantz meta-analysis are misleading and scientifically unreliable,” the authors conclude.

IEVA President Dustin Dahlmann commented:

“This new peer-reviewed critique confirms what responsible scientists and public health experts have long pointed out: Vaping and smoking are not the same. Flawed studies like this have misled policymakers and the public, obstructing access to harm reduction for millions of smokers across Europe. Evidence-based regulation is essential.”

The Independent European Vape Alliance (IEVA) calls on regulators, health authorities, and media outlets to rely on high-quality, transparent scientific evidence when forming public health policies around vaping.

📚 Read the full study here:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11739-025-03956-w