Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30392025›Full record

ReviewEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2019

Are electronic cigarettes a healthier alternative to conventional tobacco smoking?

Jan Löhler, Barbara Wollenberg

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Changes in Biomarkers of Exposure on Switching From a Conventional Cigarette to the glo Tobacco Heating Product: A Randomized, Controlled Ambulatory Study.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2021
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Electronic Cigarettes and Asthma: What Do We Know So Far?Journal of personalized medicine · 2021
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. 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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jan LöhlerWissenschaftliches Institut für angewandte HNO-Heilkunde (WIAHNO, Scientific Institute of Applied ENT Medicine) of the Deutscher Berufsverband der HNO-Ärzte e. V. (German Professional Association of ENT Surgeons), Maienbeeck 1, 24576, Bad Bramstedt, Germany. loehler@hno-aerzte.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9865-5731
Barbara WollenbergSchleswig-Holstein University Hospital, Lübeck Campus, ENT Clinic, Lübeck, Germany.
HNO Bad Bramstedt · DEUniversity Hospital Schleswig-Holstein · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Electronic cigarettes (EC) with and without nicotine are used by more and more consumers within the last decade. The long-term risks of vapor inhalation are unknown. This study should describe the state of the art of knowledge with respect to the following four items: (1) ingredients of the vapor and their potential risks, the influence of EC on smoking of combustible tobacco to (2) adults and (3) the youth, and (4) the side effects of passive vaping. The vapor of EC contains, in comparison to tobacco smoke, less harmful substances, qualitatively and quantitatively. But, due to failing standardization of EC, this comparison is difficult. Adults are often using both, EC and combustible cigarettes dually. In addition, EC were used for supporting smoke-quitting. Unfortunately, consuming EC with and without nicotine due later to a higher risk of conventional tobacco smoking for the user. In general, the effects of passive vaporing are unknown. Although the vapor of EC is less harmful than tobacco smoke, EC are not hazard-free lifestyle products. Technical standardization should be desirable. Adult smoker's benefit using EC is given by completely change to EC only. The rates of success using EC for smoke quitting are not well evaluated. Children and their parents should be informed on the risks of EC use as a precursor of combustible smoking mandatorily. Internet selling EC to any non-adult should be forbidden by law. EC ought not to be allowed to weaken non-smoker's rights, and third persons should be protected by the potential hazards of EC vaporing.

Indexed as

Electronic Nicotine Delivery SystemsEquipment DesignHumansNicotineSmokingSmoking CessationNicotinee-CigaretteElectronic nicotine delivery systemsGateway hypothesisHead and neck cancerIngredientsReviewRisksSmokingSmoking cessation

Identifiers

PMID30392025
OpenAlexW2898679531

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.