Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30480216›Full record

ArticleOTO open

Electronic Cigarette Awareness, Use, and Perceptions among Cancer Patients.

Erin J Buczek, Kathleen F Harrington, Peter S Hendricks, Cecelia E Schmalbach

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in OTO open. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

4 authors.

Erin J BuczekDepartment of Otolaryngology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA.
Kathleen F HarringtonDivision of Pulmonary, Allergy & Critical Care Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA.
Peter S HendricksDepartment of Health Behavior, School of Public Health, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA.
Cecelia E SchmalbachDepartment of Otolaryngology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveElectronic cigarettes (e-cigs) are an emerging trend, yet little is known about their use in the cancer population. The objectives of this study were (1) to describe characteristics of e-cig use among cancer patients, (2) to define e-cig advertising exposure, and (3) to characterize perceptions of traditional cigarettes versus e-cigs. STUDY

designCross-sectional study.

settingComprehensive cancer center. SUBJECTS AND

methodsInpatient, current smokers with a cancer diagnosis. E-cig exposure and use were defined using descriptive statistics. Wilcoxon rank test was used to compare perceptions between e-cigs and traditional cigarettes.

resultsA total of 979 patients were enrolled in the study; 39 cancer patients were identified. Most cancer patients were women (59%), with an average age of 53.3 years. Of the patients, 46.2% reported e-cig use, most of which (88.9%) was "experimental or occasional." The primary reason for e-cig use was to aid smoking cessation (66.7%), alternative use in nonsmoking areas (22.2%), and "less risky" cigarette replacement (5.6%). The most common sources for e-cig information were TV (76.9%), stores (48.7%), friends (35.9%), family (30.8%), and newspapers or magazines (12.8%). Compared with cigarettes, e-cigs were viewed as posing a reduced health risk (

conclusionsE-cig use and advertising exposure are common among cancer patients. E-cig use is perceived as healthier and more socially acceptable but less likely to produce a number of desired consequences of cigarette use.

Indexed as

cancer patientselectronic cigarettessmoking cessation

Identifiers

PMID30480216
PMCPMC6239146

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.