Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26876772›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of preventive medicine2016

Revisiting the Rise of Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems Using Search Query Surveillance.

John W Ayers, Benjamin M Althouse, Jon-Patrick Allem, Eric C Leas, Mark Dredze, Rebecca S Williams

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of preventive medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Overview of Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems: A Systematic Review.American journal of preventive medicine · 2017
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. E-Cigarette Marketing and Communication: How E-Cigarette Companies Market E-Cigarettes and the Public Engages with E-cigarette Information.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2019
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors.

John W AyersGraduate School of Public Health, San Diego State University, San Diego, California. Electronic address: ayers.john.w@gmail.com.
Benjamin M AlthouseThe Santa Fe Institute, Santa Fe, New Mexico; Department of Biology, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico.
Jon-Patrick AllemKeck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.
Eric C LeasUniversity of California San Diego School of Medicine, La Jolla, California.
Mark DredzeJohns Hopkins Human Language Technology Center of Excellence, Baltimore, Maryland.
Rebecca S WilliamsLineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina; Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

Funding

Training grant for Cancer Control and EpidemiologyT32CA009492 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI PENTZ, MARY ANN · 1985 to 2019
$7.4M
Evaluating the Impact of Federal Legislation on Internet Tobacco SalesR01CA169189 · NCI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI WILLIAMS, REBECCA S · 2012 to 2021
$5.6M
TOBACCO TRENDS: A REAL-TIME SENTINEL FOR TOBACCO CONTROL EVALUATIONSR21CA173299 · NCI · SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI AYERS, JOHN W, HOVELL, MELBOURNE F · 2013 to 2014
$353k
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA169189NCI NIH HHS R21 CA173299NCI NIH HHS T32 CA009492
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPublic perceptions of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) remain poorly understood because surveys are too costly to regularly implement and, when implemented, there are long delays between data collection and dissemination. Search query surveillance has bridged some of these gaps. Herein, ENDS' popularity in the U.S. is reassessed using Google searches.

methodsENDS searches originating in the U.S. from January 2009 through January 2015 were disaggregated by terms focused on e-cigarette (e.g., e-cig) versus vaping (e.g., vapers); their geolocation (e.g., state); the aggregate tobacco control measures corresponding to their geolocation (e.g., clean indoor air laws); and by terms that indicated the searcher's potential interest (e.g., buy e-cigs likely indicates shopping)-all analyzed in 2015.

resultsENDS searches are rapidly increasing in the U.S., with 8,498,000 searches during 2014 alone. Increasingly, searches are shifting from e-cigarette- to vaping-focused terms, especially in coastal states and states where anti-smoking norms are stronger. For example, nationally, e-cigarette searches declined 9% (95% CI=1%, 16%) during 2014 compared with 2013, whereas vaping searches increased 136% (95% CI=97%, 186%), even surpassing e-cigarette searches. Additionally, the percentage of ENDS searches related to shopping (e.g., vape shop) nearly doubled in 2014, whereas searches related to health concerns (e.g., vaping risks) or cessation (e.g., quit smoking with e-cigs) were rare and declined in 2014.

conclusionsENDS popularity is rapidly growing and evolving. These findings could inform survey questionnaire development for follow-up investigation and immediately guide policy debates about how the public perceives the health risks or cessation benefits of ENDS.

Indexed as

Information Seeking BehaviorCommerceElectronic Nicotine Delivery SystemsHumansInternetSmoke-Free PolicyTobacco ProductsVaping

Identifiers

PMID26876772
PMCPMC5422030

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.