ArticleExperimental and clinical psychopharmacology2019
Abuse liability assessment of an electronic cigarette in combustible cigarette smokers.
Article in Experimental and clinical psychopharmacology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.
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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Abuse Liability of Electronic Cigarettes in Never-Smoking Electronic Cigarette Users.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2025Trial
- Randomized clinical studies assessing the pharmacokinetics and subjective effects of vuse alto electronic nicotine delivery systems.Scientific reports · 2025Trial
- An abuse liability assessment of the glo tobacco heating product in comparison to combustible cigarettes and nicotine replacement therapy.Scientific reports · 2022Trial
- Assessment of nicotine pharmacokinetics and abuse liability in randomized, crossover studies of Vuse Alto electronic nicotine delivery systems.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- Electronic cigarette cue reactivity in exclusive electronic cigarette users.Drug and alcohol dependence · 2025Article
- Dose by design: How limits on nicotine flux and puff duration affect the abuse liability of electronic nicotine delivery systems.Drug and alcohol dependence · 2025Article
- Randomized crossover clinical studies to assess abuse liability and nicotine pharmacokinetics of Velo Oral Nicotine pouches.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- Assessment of human abuse potential of an unflavored, sucralose-sweetened electronic cigarette in combustible cigarette smokers.Experimental and clinical psychopharmacology · 2024Article
- Withdrawal from repeated nicotine vapor exposure increases somatic signs of physical dependence, anxiety-like behavior, and brain reward thresholds in adult male rats.Neuropharmacology · 2023Article
- Measuring vaping-related expectancies in young adults: Psychometric evaluation of the Electronic Nicotine Vaping Outcomes (ENVO) scale.Drug and alcohol dependence · 2023Article
- Topics of Nicotine-Related Discussions on Twitter: Infoveillance Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
- Variable Voltage, Tank-Style ENDS Do Not Always Deliver Nicotine.Tobacco regulatory science · 2020Article
- Recent findings in the pharmacology of inhaled nicotine: Preclinical and clinical in vivo studies.Neuropharmacology · 2020Review
- Effects of electronic cigarette heating coil resistance and liquid nicotine concentration on user nicotine delivery, heart rate, subjective effects, puff topography, and liquid consumption.Experimental and clinical psychopharmacology · 2020Article
- Abuse liability of electronic cigarettes in men who are experienced electronic cigarette users.Experimental and clinical psychopharmacology · 2020Article
- Acute effects of JUUL and IQOS in cigarette smokers.Tobacco control · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Under certain conditions, electronic cigarettes (e-cigs) can deliver nicotine to and suppress tobacco abstinence symptoms in cigarette smokers. Growing popularity of e-cigs raises abuse liability concerns. This study's purpose was to compare the abuse liability of an e-cig (1.5 Ohm, 3.3 V) filled with 36 mg/mL or 0 mg/mL nicotine to an Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved nicotine inhaler (IN) and participants' own brand (OB) of cigarettes. Smokers (N = 24) completed four sessions in which they completed the multiple-choice procedure, and plasma nicotine concentration and subjective effects were measured. Mean (SD) multiple-choice procedure crossover point was $0.87 (1.0) for the 36-mg/mL nicotine e-cig and $0.96 (1.2) for the 0-mg/mL e-cig, significantly higher than the IN mean of $0.32 (0.6) but significantly lower than the OB cigarette mean of $1.42 (1.4). Ten puffs from an own-brand cigarette increased mean plasma nicotine concentration from 3.55 (2.8) to 13.64 (9.8) ng/mL, as compared to an increase from 3.16 (1.8) to 8.51 (5.4) ng/mL for the 36-mg/mL e-cig. The 36-mg/mL e-cig reduced nicotine abstinence symptoms more than the 0-mg/mL e-cig, and both e-cigs were rated as more reinforcing than the inhaler but less reinforcing than participants' OB cigarettes (ps < .05). Results suggest that the e-cig examined had higher abuse liability than the IN but lower than combustible cigarettes. These data and methods may be useful for policymakers by revealing how e-cig abuse liability compares to tobacco/nicotine products with abuse liability profiles that are well established. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
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.