ArticleBMJ open2017
The messages presented in online electronic cigarette promotions and discussions: a scoping review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Examining the Peer-Reviewed Literature on Tobacco-Related Social Media Data: Scoping Review.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2024Article
- E-Cigarette Promotion on Twitter in Australia: Content Analysis of Tweets.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2020Article
- The Messages Presented in Electronic Cigarette-Related Social Media Promotions and Discussion: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Article
- Vaping associated with healthy food words: A content analysis of Twitter.Addictive behaviors reports · 2018Article
- Prevention of HIV and Other Sexually Transmissible Infections in Expatriates and Traveler Networks: Qualitative Study of Peer Interaction in an Online Forum.Journal of medical Internet research · 2018Article
- Effects of aging and environmental tobacco smoke exposure on ocular and plasma circulatory microRNAs in the Rhesus macaque.Molecular vision · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionElectronic cigarettes have become increasingly popular over the last 10 years. These devices represent a new paradigm for tobacco control offering smokers an opportunity to inhale nicotine without inhaling tobacco smoke. To date there are no definite conclusions regarding the safety and long-term health effects of electronic cigarettes; however, there is evidence that they are being marketed online as a healthier alternative to traditional cigarettes. This scoping review aims to identify and describe the breadth of messages (eg, health, smoking-cessation and price related claims) presented in online electronic cigarette promotions and discussions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A scoping review will be undertaken adhering to the methodology outlined in The Joanna Briggs Institute Manual for Scoping Reviews. Six key electronic databases will be searched to identify eligible studies. Studies must be published in English between 2007 and 2017, examine and/or analyse content captured from online electronic cigarette promotions or discussions and report results for electronic cigarettes separately to other forms of tobacco delivery. Studies will be screened initially by title and abstract, followed by full-text review. Results of the search strategy will be reported in a PRISMA flow diagram and presented in tabular form with accompanying narrative summary. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The methodology consists of reviewing and collecting data from publicly available studies, and therefore does not require ethics approval. Results will be published in a peer reviewed journal and be presented at national/international conferences. Additionally, findings will be disseminated via social media and online platforms. Advocacy will be key to informing policy makers of regulatory and health issues that need to be addressed. REGISTRATION DETAILS: The review was registered prospectively with The Joanna Briggs Institute Systematic Reviews database.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.