ReviewPolish archives of internal medicine2020
E-cigarettes and their impact on health: from pharmacology to clinical implications.
Review in Polish archives of internal medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of nicotine mouth spray on urges to vape: A randomized, placebo-controlled, pharmacodynamic clinical trial in exclusive e-cigarette users.Addiction (Abingdon, England) · 2025Trial
- Knowledge and attitudes toward e-cigarette smoking among health and non-health science students: A cross-sectional study.Tobacco prevention & cessation · 2026Article
- Patterns of E-Cigarette Use Among Cardiac Inpatients at a Tertiary-Care Hospital: A Cross-Sectional Survey.CJC open · 2025Article
- Vaping leads tobacco consumption among university students in Arab countries: a study of behavioral and psychosocial factors associated with smoking.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- The Potential Impact of E-cigarettes on the Life-Years Lost from Conventional Smoking in the Russian Federation.Journal of consumer policy · 2023Article
- An Evaluation of the Knowledge and Perceptions of Pharmacy Staff and Pre-Registration Students of E-Cigarettes Use: A Systematic Review.Tobacco use insights · 2021Review
- An update on controversies in e-cigarettes.Paediatric respiratory reviews · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Worldwide, cigarette smoking is the major cause of premature mortality and diseases that can be prevented. Given that people continue smoking despite associated health risks, delivering nicotine without combustion should be considered a valuable and much less harmful way to reduce the public health burden caused by smoking. E‑cigarettes could play such a role if they were proven to be less harmful than combustible cigarettes. Although the number of clinical trials and human studies assessing the safety of e‑cigarettes is limited, numerous in vitro and in vivo studies reported on the potential harmful effects of the aerosol generated from e‑cigarettes. This article reviews the results of major clinical trials and laboratory studies with regard to cancer as well as cardiovascular and respiratory risk associated with the use of e‑cigarettes. Additionally, it also discusses the potential application of e‑cigarettes as smoking cessation tools. Most studies have indicated so far that e‑cigarettes are less harmful, but this applies only to smokers who completely switched to e‑cigarettes. In the opinion of the authors, good-quality research is crucial to establish the tolerance, safety, efficacy, and harm reduction potential of new technologies. Considering a significant role that physicians and other health providers play in helping smokers, there is an urgent need for evidence‑based guidelines and recommendations for clinical practitioners on potential benefits and risks of e‑cigarette use.
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.