Evidence Hub

Passive smoking and the risk of hypertension in nonsmoking adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Yang Song, Ke Du, Huanling Jiang

PeerJ, 2026

783,798 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

Background Previous studies on the association between passive smoking and hypertension are controversial. The association between these two elements remains inconclusive and requires a comprehensive meta-analysis. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore this association. Methods We searched for full articles from four databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane databases, from 1971 until February 2025. Cross-sectional, case-control, and cohort studies examining the relationship between passive smoking exposure and the occurrence of hypertension were considered to be suitable for general analysis. Effect sizes and relevant 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled and calculated. Results We included 13 studies, with 783,798 nonsmoking adults being included in the pooled analysis An association between passive smoking and elevated risk of hypertension was observed in cross-sectional/case-control studies (Effect size = 1.20, 95% CI [1.08–1.34], p = 0.001, I2 = 99.1%) and in cohort studies (Effect size = 1.17, 95% CI [1.11–1.25], p < 0.001, I2 = 0%). The result was still significant for cross-sectional/case-control studies after excluding two studies based on sensitivity analysis (Effect size =1.29, 95% CI [1.08–1.54], p = 0.005, I2 = 73.5%). Subgroup analysis indicated that the increased risk was effective for both male and female populations. For the frequency and duration of secondhand smoking (SHS) exposure, only exposure ≥3…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 783,798 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free