Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26508399›Full record

ReviewNicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco2016

A Proposed Collaboration Against Big Tobacco: Common Ground Between the Vaping and Public Health Community in the United States.

Theodore L Wagener, Ellen Meier, Alayna P Tackett, James D Matheny, Terry F Pechacek

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Polarization Within the Field of Tobacco and Nicotine Science and its Potential Impact on Trainees.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2021
    Article
  5. 9. Flavours in novel and emerging nicotine and tobacco products.World Health Organization technical report series · 2021
    Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Theodore L WagenerOklahoma Tobacco Research Center, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK; Department of Pediatrics, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK; theodore-wagener@ouhsc.edu.
Ellen MeierOklahoma Tobacco Research Center, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK; Department of Psychology, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK;
Alayna P TackettOklahoma Tobacco Research Center, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK; Department of Psychology, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK;
James D MathenyOklahoma Tobacco Research Center, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK;
Terry F PechacekDivision of Health Policy and Management, Georgia State University School of Public Health, Atlanta, GA.

Funding

Tracking and Evaluation CoreU54GM104938 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA HLTH SCIENCES CTR · PI JUDITH A JAMES · 2013 to 2026
$68.2M
Examination of First and Second Generation E-cigarettesR01CA204891 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA HLTH SCIENCES CTR · PI WAGENER, THEODORE LEE · 2016 to 2020
$3.0M
Novel Methods to Reduce Children's Secondhand Smoke ExposureR21CA164521 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA HLTH SCIENCES CTR · PI WAGENER, THEODORE LEE · 2013 to 2014
$315k
The Impact of Waterpipe Tobacco Flavors on Waterpipe Smoking Intentions, Perceptions, Patterns, and Toxicant ExposureR03DA041928 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA HLTH SCIENCES CTR · PI WAGENER, THEODORE LEE · 2016 to 2017
$283k
NCATS NIH HHS L30 TR001047NCI NIH HHS R01 CA204891NCI NIH HHS R21 CA164521NIDA NIH HHS R03 DA041928NIGMS NIH HHS U54 GM104938
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

unlabelledAn unfortunate conflict is underway between the public health community and the vaping community over e-cigarettes' harmfulness or lack thereof. This conflict is made worse by an information vacuum that is being filled by vocal members on both sides of the debate; a perceived lack of credibility of public health officials by those in the vaping community; the tobacco industry's recent involvement in e-cigarettes; and the constant evolution of different styles and types of e-cigarettes. This conflict is avoidable; common ground exists. If both groups rally around what is in their own and the public's best interest-the end of combustible tobacco--all will benefit significantly. If not, the result may be missed opportunities, misguided alliances, and--ultimately-poorer public health. IMPLICATIONS: This study brings light to the contentious debate between the vaping and public health communities. It addresses how both sides are responsible for bringing misleading information to the public and vocal leaders on both sides are unknowingly intensifying and polarizing the debate-likely at the expense of public health. It also describes how this conflict is avoidable, and provides a starting point for potential positions of common ground against Big Tobacco.

Indexed as

Electronic Nicotine Delivery SystemsIntersectoral CollaborationSmoking PreventionAdultFemaleHealth EducationHumansMalePublic HealthSmokingTobacco IndustryUnited States

Identifiers

PMID26508399
PMCPMC6959509

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.