ArticleTobacco regulatory science2021
Tweets About Acute Nicotine Toxicity Due to e-Liquid Exposure.
Article in Tobacco regulatory science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Content and trend analysis of user-generated nicotine sickness tweets: A retrospective infoveillance study.Tobacco induced diseases · 2022Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesIntentional and unintentional exposures to electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) e-liquids can cause illness and death. In this study, we describe acute nicotine toxicity due to e-liquid exposure (ANTEE) information found on Twitter and contextualize ANTEE experiences to clarify conditions associated with exposure.
methodsWe obtained 20,180 ANTEE-relevant tweets from 2013-2018. We excluded retweets, suspected bots, non-English tweets, tweets not originating in the US, and advertisements. We coded relevant tweets qualitatively using domains for e-liquid exposure tweets and e-liquid-related non-exposure tweets (ie, posts reflecting hypothetical exposure, information about e-liquids).
resultsContent analyses were based on 1656 e-liquid exposure tweets and 1210 non-exposure tweets. More than half of exposure tweets (61.3%) were classified as accidental exposures; subjects were predominately young people, assumed to be under age 18 (40.5%), and self (27.7%). The most common exposure route was ingestion (61.1%). Of exposure tweets, 13.9% described health effects and 12.7% described seeking assistance. Most non-exposure tweets were classified as likely or hypothetical exposure (49.9%) or presentation of advice, information, or warnings (40.5%).
conclusionsTweets can serve as a novel and complementary data source for learning more about e-liquid exposures.
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.