ABSTRACT
Introduction Smoking is one of the lifestyle choices associated with an increased risk of chronic health conditions and poorer COVID-19 outcomes. Because it is known that the lungs recover after quitting smoking, a direct comparison of the severity of COVID-19 infection in current and former smokers needs to be investigated.
Methods and analysis The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocol (PRISMA-P) 2015 Checklist was used. Non-randomized studies will be searched in PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL library, Embase, and Epistemonikos from December 2019 to the present. Hand-searching of grey literature, key journals, and reference lists will be conducted
This review will include studies of current and former smokers, with the main outcome being ICU admission, assisted respiration, or death. Two independent reviewers will select primary studies and abstract data from them. The Newcastle-Ottawa checklist will be used to assess the risk of bias, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework will be used to assess the quality of cumulative evidence. RevMan 5.4 will be used for data analysis.
The I2 statistic will be used to evaluate heterogeneity. For similar studies, the fixed-effect method of a meta-analysis will be used; otherwise, a random-effect model will be used. The qualitative synthesis will be used for studies that are ineligible for the quantitative approach.
Ethical consideration and dissemination Because published data will be reviewed, no ethical approval is required. Our findings will be presented at national and/or international conferences, and they will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.
Strengths and limitations of this study
This is a focused research question comparing the current and ex-smokers risk of contracting the severe form of COVID-19.
This systematic review and meta-analysis will provide evidence of the dangers of smoking during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The PRISMA-P reporting guidelines were strictly followed while writing this protocol.
Study selection will be carried out by two independent reviewers and a third person will intervene if a disagreement arises.
A potential limitation is that an observational study design will be used in this systematic review.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This is a systematic review that rely on published articles, therefore ethical approval was not necessary
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
