The EVALI outbreak makes a strong case for better regulation of all vaporizer products.

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.

1. E-cigarette vaping associated acute lung injury (EVALI): state of science and future research needs.Critical reviews in toxicology · 2022
   Review

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Lessons from the public health responses to the US outbreak of vaping-related lung injury.2021
• Comment on
  The need to more effectively regulate END markets: A primary public health lesson of the U.S. vaping associated lung injury outbreak.2021
• Comment on
  A ban targeting only open-system e-cigarettes is unlikely to prevent a future EVALI-like outbreak among e-cigarette users.2021
• Comment on
  Cleaning up the science: the need for an ontology of consensus scientific terms in e-cigarette research.2021

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as