Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32727724›Full record

ArticleCancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology2020

Nicotine Exposure by Device Type among Adult Electronic Nicotine Delivery System Users in the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study, 2015-2016.

Brian L Rostron, Blair Coleman, Yu-Ching Cheng, Heather L Kimmel, Olusola Oniyide, Lanqing Wang, Cindy M Chang

Open access · bronzeAbstract readHistorical Article
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 33% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Brian L RostronCenter for Tobacco Products, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland. brian.rostron@fda.hhs.gov.
Blair ColemanCenter for Tobacco Products, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland.
Yu-Ching ChengCenter for Tobacco Products, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland.
Heather L KimmelNational Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland.ORCID 0000-0001-8278-0095
Olusola OniyideCenter for Tobacco Products, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland.
Lanqing WangNational Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Cindy M ChangCenter for Tobacco Products, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland.ORCID 0000-0002-2103-8222
United States Food and Drug Administration · USNational Center for Environmental Health · USNational Institute on Drug Abuse · US

Funding

Intramural FDA HHS FD999999NIDA NIH HHS HHSN271201100027C
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrevious studies have examined the characteristics of open and closed system electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) users, but population-level information on nicotine exposure among these users has not been available.

methodsWe analyzed nicotine biomarker and survey data from Wave 3 of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) study collected from October 2015 to October 2016. We identified 277 exclusive ENDS users and 468 dual cigarette and ENDS users and analyzed concentrations of nicotine and its metabolites obtained from urine samples by device type and other characteristics, such as frequency of use and e-liquid flavor.

resultsAmong exclusive ENDS users, open system users had higher levels of total nicotine exposure (TNE-2) than closed system users [8.8 μmol/g creatinine (95% confidence interval [CI] = 5.3-14.8 μmol/g vs. 2.0 μmol/g (95% CI = 0.7-5.4 μmol/g)]. However, TNE-2 concentrations were similar when open and closed system users were stratified as daily [26.4 μmol/g (95% CI = 20.1-34.7 μmol/g) vs. 27.1 μmol/g (95% CI = 16.4-44.9 μmol/g)] and nondaily [0.5 μmol/g (95% CI = 0.1-1.9 μmol/g) vs. 0.2 μmol/g (95% CI = 0.0-0.7 μmol/g)] ENDS users. Dual users generally had higher nicotine exposure than exclusive users.

conclusionsNicotine exposure was observed to be higher among exclusive open system ENDS users compared with closed system users, but levels were similar when users were stratified by frequency of use. IMPACT: These results suggest that exclusive ENDS users with similar use patterns receive comparable levels of nicotine, regardless of whether they use open or closed system devices.

Indexed as

BiomarkersElectronic Nicotine Delivery SystemsHistory, 21st CenturyHumansNicotineSmokersBiomarkersNicotine

Identifiers

PMID32727724
PMCPMC7541662
OpenAlexW3046466749

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.