ArticleJournal of community hospital internal medicine perspectives2020
Electronic cigarette survey characteristics.
Article in Journal of community hospital internal medicine perspectives, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionElectronic cigarettes (EC) remain a controversial topic with uncertainty about harm reduction in current smokers, their efficacy in smoking cessation, their potential for addiction, the need for regulation, and the type of information needed to educate the public about the benefits and hazards of EC. Multiple medical institutions and organizations have conducted surveys to investigate the demographics and perceptions of EC consumers in adult and youth populations. However, it is unknown whether these surveys use consistent, reliable, or accurate measures for EC use.
methodsWe analyzed 13 survey articles identified during a review of the use of EC during smoking cessation programs to determine the characteristic features of the surveys and to determine how frequently they satisfied the measurement of important core items suggested by recent articles.
resultsOur analysis focused on 13 studies. These studies represented the work of 13 separate research groups and were published in 10 different biomedical journals with a median impact factor score of 4.1. The median number of participants in the studies was 2,624 (Q1-Q3: 662-6,356); the number of participants ranged from 179 to 19,414. The median number of e-cigarette users in the surveys was 840 (Q1-Q3: 256-3,849). All studies provided clear study goals in their introduction. Five surveys used on-line methods to collect information; four studies provided limited information about the reliability of their data. All studies reported study outcomes and considered limitations. Five studies had limited external validity. None of the surveys collected a complete set of core information recommended by recent authorities on survey methodology for EC.
conclusionsThe surveys reviewed in this project had significant variability in study design, survey population, and study goals. Consequently, comparisons across studies become difficult and limit the external validity of survey studies on EC.
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.