ArticleAddictive behaviors2019
Limited utility of detailed e-cigarette use measures: An analysis of NESARC-III.
Article in Addictive behaviors, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prevalence and perceptions of e-cigarette use among medical students in a Saudi University.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2020Article
- Patterns and Frequency of Current e-Cigarette Use in United States Adults.Substance use & misuse · 2019Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe heterogeneity of e-cigarette products and e-liquids pose challenges to surveillance of e-cigarette exposure. The goal of this study was to evaluate the internal consistency of e-cigarette use frequency, quantity, and duration measures in a national population-based survey.
methodsData were drawn from the 2012-2013 for the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions-III (n = 36,309; NESARC-III). Adults who used e-cigarettes/e-liquid during the past year (≤18 years old; n = 1,229) were asked about their age of first use, recency of use, quantity (i.e., cartridges, drops), nicotine concentration, and duration (hours). Several internal consistency parameters were compared for e-cigarette measures in past-year (n = 750) and past 30-day e-cigarette users (n = 472) overall, and by frequency of use (i.e., infrequent [≤3 days/month], non-daily [1-6 days/week], daily).
resultsThere were no significant differences in quantity, nicotine concentration, or duration by frequency of use in past 30-day e-cigarette users. One-third of past 30-day and almost half of past-year users did not know the nicotine concentration of their cartridge or e-liquid. Correlations between all e-cigarette use measures were low, with the highest correlations seen between e-liquid quantity and cartridge quantity in all past 30-day users (r = 0.28) and those reporting any e-liquid use (r = 0.40). Cronbach's alpha and mean interitem correlations were low across all user groups.
conclusionsLow to moderate correlation across e-cigarette measures in e-cigarette users implies low internal consistency of these measures in a population survey. Findings suggest measures such as quantity and nicotine concentration might more appropriate in samples of recent experienced e-cigarette users than in general population samples.
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.