ArticleTobacco regulatory science2020
Comparison of Measurement Methods for Electronic Cigarette Puff Topography.
Article in Tobacco regulatory science, 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.
- Abuse Liability of Electronic Cigarettes in Never-Smoking Electronic Cigarette Users.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2025Trial
- E-cigarette puff topography instruction to enhance switching among COPD patients who smoke.Frontiers in public health · 2025Trial
- Addiction potential of combustible menthol cigarette alternatives: a randomised cross-over trial.Tobacco control · 2024Trial
- The in vitro effect of electronic versus conventional cigarettes on color stability and surface roughness of dental resin composites.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Influence of nicotine form and nicotine flux on puffing behavior and mouth-level exposure to nicotine from electronic nicotine delivery systems.Drug and alcohol dependence · 2024Article
- An Examination of Objective and Self-Report Measures of Ad Libitum Electronic Cigarette Use: Identifying Patterns of Puffing Behavior and Evaluating Self-Report Items.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2023Article
- Comparing POD and MOD ENDS Users' Product Characteristics, Use Behaviors, and Nicotine Exposure.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2023Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesMeasurement of electronic cigarette (ECIG) puff topography provides an understanding of how product characteristics and user behavior affect nicotine delivery. However, mouthpiece-based topography devices may affect natural puffing behavior. This study was designed to compare ECIG topography measured by mouthpiece-based eTop computerized device and mouthpiece-free video recordings.
methodsECiG-naïve cigarette smokers (N = 18) and ECIG-experienced users (N = 25) puffed on a standardized ECIG via eTop or conventionally; both sessions were videotaped. Following overnight abstinence, participants experienced one directed (10 puffs, 30 sec IPI) and 2
resultsNo statistically significant differences between methods were observed for topography, heart rate, or abstinence-related subjective effects, and both methods were accurate and reliable. Use of a mouthpiece was perceived to alter aspects of ECIG puffing (eg, "reduce enjoyment).
conclusionsThe mouthpiece-based eTop measures ECIG topography precisely as when no mouthpiece is used, and interferes minimally with subjective ECIG experience. Reliable and valid ECIG topography measurement methods are an important regulatory tool, as they can be used to understand the interplay between product design and user behavior to predict toxicant exposure.
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.