Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29985948›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Are electronic nicotine delivery systems helping cigarette smokers quit? Evidence from a prospective cohort study of U.S. adult smokers, 2015-2016.

Scott R Weaver, Jidong Huang, Terry F Pechacek, John Wesley Heath, David L Ashley, Michael P Eriksen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 76 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
76citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

76 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

16 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Scott R WeaverDivision of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-3155-4041
Jidong HuangTobacco Center of Regulatory Science (TCORS), School of Public Health, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, United States of America.
Terry F PechacekTobacco Center of Regulatory Science (TCORS), School of Public Health, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, United States of America.
John Wesley HeathTobacco Center of Regulatory Science (TCORS), School of Public Health, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, United States of America.
David L AshleyTobacco Center of Regulatory Science (TCORS), School of Public Health, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, United States of America.
Michael P EriksenTobacco Center of Regulatory Science (TCORS), School of Public Health, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, United States of America.

Funding

The Science of Decision Making: Connecting People and PolicyP50DA036128 · NIDA · GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY · PI ERIKSEN, MICHAEL PAUL · 2013 to 2018
$19.4M
NIDA NIH HHS P50 DA036128
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe potential of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) to reduce the cardiovascular and other disease risks of smoking is of great interest. While many smokers report using ENDS for cessation, their impact under real-world use patterns and conditions on adult smokers' quitting behavior is uncertain. The objective of this study was to generate more recent and comprehensive evidence on the effect of "real world" ENDS use on the population quit rates of adult smokers while taking account of frequency and duration of use, device type, e-liquid flavor, and reasons for use. METHODS AND

findingsWe conducted a population-based, prospective cohort study of a random probability sample of 1284 U.S. adult smokers recruited in August/September 2015 and re-contacted one-year later (September 2016) from GfK's KnowledgePanel, a national, probability-based web-panel designed to be representative of non-institutionalized U.S. adults. Among the 1081 baseline smokers who remained members of KnowledgePanel, 858 completed the follow-up survey. The primary outcome was smoking abstinence for at least 30 days prior to follow-up. Secondary outcomes were making a quit attempt during the 12-month study period and number of cigarettes smoked per day at follow-up. The adjusted odds of quitting smoking were lower for those that used ENDS at baseline (9.4%, 95% CI = 5.22%-16.38%; AOR = 0.30, 95% CI = 0.13-0.72) compared to smokers who did not use at ENDS (18.9%, 95% CI = 14.24%-24.68%). Smokers who used ENDS daily at some point during the study period were also less likely to quit smoking than nonusers (AOR = 0.17; 95% CI = 0.04-0.82). Limited ability to draw causal inferences from the observational design and a lack of biochemical verification of quitting smoking or ENDS use are limitations of this study.

conclusionsWe found no evidence that ENDS use, within context of the 2015-2016 US regulatory and tobacco/vaping market landscape, helped adult smokers quit at rates higher than smokers who did not use these products. Absent any meaningful changes, ENDS use among adult smokers is unlikely to be a sufficient solution to obtaining a meaningful increase in population quit rates. Additional research is needed to reconcile the divergent literature and monitor the impact of ENDS in an environment of rapidly evolving markets and regulatory policies.

Indexed as

AdultElectronic Nicotine Delivery SystemsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesSmokersSmokingSmoking CessationSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited States

Identifiers

PMID29985948
PMCPMC6037369

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.