Table 3

Long-term effect of waterpipe smoking on pulmonary function

StudyPopulationWP quantityTobacco typeIncluded only healthy participants?ComparisonDiff in FEV1%pred*Diff in FVC %pred*Diff in FEV1/FVC %*Diff in FEF25–75%pred*
Boskabady 201261371 men, 301 women, average ages in 30s and 40sAverage (Avg) 1.17 (±0.53) WP smoked per weekUnspecifiedYesWP vs non-smokers−14.6−21.9NE−13.8
WP vs cigarette (normal inhalation)−3.83 (NS)−7.03NE−13.0
Ben Saad 201363142 men age 35–60 yearsAvg 36 (±22) WP-yearsTabamel (sweetened tobacco)YesWP vs cigarette+24.0+14.0+13.0NE
Ben Saad 201162110 men, age 20–60 yearsMedian 14 WP-years 14UnspecifiedYesWP vs reference values
Mutairi 200664139 men, 13 women, age 24–65 yearsunspecifiedMoassal,YesWP vs cigarette−1.1 (NS)NE+0.5‡ (NS)NE
WP vs non-smokers−12.2 (NS)NE−2.5‡ (NS)NE
Aydin 20046525 persons average age 49.2 (±12.2) yearsAvg 23.7 (±8.3) years smoking 1–2 times/dayUnspecifiedYesWP vs passive cigarette smokers−2.5 (NS)+0.9 (NS)−5.6‡−7.2 (NS)
Kiter 200066397 men, age 18–85 yearsAverage 37 (±42) Jurak-yearsJurak (tobacco-fruit mixture)NoWP vs non-smokers−6.5−5.86 (NS)−3.02‡−8.63
WP vs cigarette+3.01−0.5 (NS)+4.49‡+5.08
Mohammad 201367788 women, age 44+ yearsUnspecifiedUnspecifiedNoWP vs cigarette+5.3 (NS)NE+0.1 (NS)NE
WP vs non-smokers
She 2014691238, mostly men, age 40+ yearsAverage 28 (±11.2) years of 17.9 (±8.9) g tobacco/dayChinese WP tobaccoYesWP vs non-smokers−9.4+6.1−12.1NE
WP vs cigarette−4.0+7.1−8.0NE
WP passive vs never-passive−9.0−6.6−4.5NE
WP passive vs cigarette-passive−6.9−5.5−3.0NE
Al-Fayez 198870441 men, 154 women smokers, 878 total participants, men 20–59 years, women 17–59 yearsNot reportedJurak (tobacco-fruit mixture)YesWP smokers vs non-smokers
 Males−0.54 L−0.43 L−4.6NE
 Females−0.41 L−0.19 L−11.42NE
Boskabady 201471§§§§§§§§§
Layoun 20142187 men, 45 women, avg age 33.4 (±13.29) years, exclusive WP smokersAvg 11.12 (±17.27) WP/weekMoassalNoWP vs non-smokers−4.4 (NS)−9.1+5.56NE
WP vs cigarette+1.63 (NS)−2.28 (NS)+4.28NE
  • *All pulmonary function values are differences (WP value—comparison group value). The units are % predicted, except FEV1/FVC, which is a % ratio, or otherwise specified.

  • †FEV1 and FEF25-75 decreased compared to reference values; no comparison group was included. FVC and FEV1/FVC were non-significant in this comparison.

  • ‡Per cent predicted value.

  • §Same as 2012 data.

  • % pred, percent predicted; % pred, per cent predicted comparison group; Diff, difference; FEF25-75, forced expiratory flow between 25% and 75% (middle half) of the FVC; FEV1, forced expiratory volume in 1 s; FEV1/FVC, Ratio of FEV1/FVC; FVC, forced vital capacity; NE, not evaluated; NS, no significant difference with comparison group; unsp, unspecified; unsp, unspecified.