ReviewThe Journal of allergy and clinical immunology2018
Electronic cigarettes: One size does not fit all.
Review in The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Virtual Reality Technology Use in Cigarette Craving and Smoking Interventions (I "Virtually" Quit): Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Pooled it
- Vape flavoring chemicals and oral fibroblast viability.Anatomy & cell biology · 2026Review
- Cross-sectional study on smoking types and stroke risk: development of a predictive model for identifying stroke risk.Frontiers in physiology · 2025Article
- Nicotinic regulation of microglia: potential contributions to addiction.Journal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996) · 2024Review
- Nicotine Dependence and Rates of Postoperative Complications in Achilles Tendon Repair.Foot & ankle international · 2024Article
- Vaping Trends and Outcomes in Primary Total Joint Arthroplasty Patients: An Analysis of 21,341 Patients.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2023Article
- Electronic Cigarettes: A Narrative Review and Cohort Study of Electronic Cigarette Users in the Otolaryngology Clinic.The Permanente journal · 2022Review
- Cue Reactivity to Electronic Cigarettes: A Systematic Review.Substance abuse : research and treatment · 2022Review
- Article
- Article
- Article
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
Abstract
Electronic cigarettes (ECs) have been growing rapidly in popularity among youth and adults in the United States over the last decade. This increasing prevalence is driven partially by the ability to customize devices, flavors, and nicotine content and the general notion that ECs are harmless, particularly in comparison with conventional cigarettes. In vitro and in vivo murine models have demonstrated a number of harmful biological effects of e-liquids and their aerosols. However, limited clinical data exist on whether these effects translate into detrimental long-term outcomes in human subjects. The short-term harmful respiratory effects of EC use demonstrated in nonsmokers argue against their use. However, slightly more favorable data exist for the respiratory benefits of substituting conventional cigarettes with ECs and the short-term efficacy of ECs as smoking cessation tools. Nonetheless, available research is severely limited in regard to long-term outcomes and by study designs fraught with bias, pointing to the need for additional research efforts with well-designed longitudinal studies to guide US Food and Drug Administration regulatory efforts. The hurdle presented by diverse device designs and e-liquid permutations, which contribute to the inconsistency of available data, also highlights the need for legislative standardization of ECs.
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.