Applying recommended evidence standards to understand the impact of e-cigarettes on youth smoking and reporting of weak scientific evidence.

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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Youth vaping and smoking and parental vaping: a panel survey.BMC public health · 2020
   Article
2. Socioeconomic patterning of vaping by smoking status among UK adults and youth.BMC public health · 2020
   Article
3. Fostering transparency in e-cigarette research synthesis: the utility and limitations of methodological hierarchies.Addiction (Abingdon, England) · 2018
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  How do we determine the impact of e-cigarettes on cigarette smoking cessation or reduction? Review and recommendations for answering the research question with scientific rigor.2018

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Funding

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as