Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28362360›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2017

A Risk Assessment Matrix for Public Health Principles: The Case for E-Cigarettes.

Daniela Saitta, Azim Chowdhury, Giancarlo Antonio Ferro, Federico Giuseppe Nalis, Riccardo Polosa

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Five-Day Changes in Biomarkers of Exposure Among Adult Smokers After Completely Switching From Combustible Cigarettes to a Nicotine-Salt Pod System.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2020
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. An Online Survey of New Zealand Vapers.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2018
    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.

Daniela SaittaDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Catania, Via Palermo 636, 95121 Catania, Italy. danisaitta@unict.it.
Azim ChowdhuryKeller and Heckman LLP, 1001 G Street N.W., Suite 500W, Washington, DC 20001, USA. chowdhury@khlaw.com.
Giancarlo Antonio FerroDepartment of Law, University of Catania, Via Gallo 24, 95124 Catania, Italy. giancarloantonioferro@gmail.com.
Federico Giuseppe NalisSchool of Specialization in Occupational Medicine, University of Messina, Via Consolare Valeria 1, 98122 Messina, Italy. nalis@hotmail.it.
Riccardo PolosaDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Catania, Via Palermo 636, 95121 Catania, Italy. polosa@unict.it.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Besides nicotine replacement therapies, a realistic alternative for smoking cessation or for smoking substitution may come from electronic cigarettes (ECs), whose popularity has been steadily growing. As for any emerging behaviour associated with exposure to inhalational agents, there is legitimate cause for concern and many health organizations and policy makers have pushed for restrictive policy measures ranging from complete bans to tight regulations of these products. Nonetheless, it is important to reframe these concerns in context of the well-known harm caused by cigarette smoking. In this article, we discuss key public health principles that should be considered when regulating ECs. These include the concept of tobacco harm reduction, importance of relative risk and risk continuum, renormalization of smoking, availability of low-risk product, proportionate taxation, and reassessment of the role of non-tobacco flavours. These public health principles may be systematically scrutinized using a risk assessment matrix that allows: (1) to determine the measure of certainty that a risk will occur; and (2) to estimate the impact of such a risk on public health. Consequently, the ultimate goal of responsible ECs regulation should be that of maximizing the favourable impact of these reduced-risk products whilst minimizing further any potential risks. Consumer perspectives, sound EC research, continuous post-marketing surveillance and reasonable safety and quality product standards should be at the very heart of future regulatory schemes that will address concerns while minimizing unintended consequences of ill-informed regulation.

Indexed as

Smoking PreventionConsumer Product SafetyElectronic Nicotine Delivery SystemsEuropeHarm ReductionHealth PolicyHumansRisk AssessmentSmokingSmoking CessationUnited Statescigarette smokingelectronic cigarettespublic healthregulationrisk assessmentrisk continuumtobacco harm reduction

Identifiers

PMID28362360
PMCPMC5409564

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.