ArticleBMJ open2021
International expert consensus on electronic nicotine delivery systems and heated tobacco products: a Delphi survey.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Electronic cigarette for smoking cessation: a fast-track Delphi consensus of French-speaking experts.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2025Article
- A multi-stage approach to support timely health policy decisions during crisis: the fast-track Delphi.BMC public health · 2024Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo provide a consensus from a panel of international experts about electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) and heated tobacco products (HTP).
designCross-sectional survey.
methodsA Delphi survey was conducted among international experts in tobacco control and smoking cessation. The first part addressed statements or recommendations about ENDS, the second about HTP, both divided into four categories: regulation, sale, use and general issues.
settingExperts from 15 countries.
participantsIndividuals with clinical, public health or research expertise in tobacco control and/or smoking cessation.
results268 experts were contacted, 92 (34%) completed the first, 55/92 (60%) the second round. Consensus for ENDS: components of e-liquids, an upper limit of nicotine concentration should be defined; a warning on the lack of evidence in long-term safety and addiction potential should be stated; ENDS should not be regulated as consumer products but either as a new category of nicotine delivery or tobacco products; ENDS should not be sold in general stores but in specialised shops, shops selling tobacco or in pharmacies with restriction on sale to minors; administration of illegal drugs is likely with ENDS. Consensus for HTP: HTP have the same addictive potential as cigarettes; they should be regulated as a tobacco product with similar warning messages as cigarettes; their advertisement should not be allowed. ENDS and HTP use should not be allowed in indoor public places; a specific tax should be implemented for ENDS, taxes on HTP should not be lower than those for cigarettes; use of cigarettes is more likely with both ENDS and HTP (dual use) than quitting smoking.
conclusionsExperts in tobacco control and/or smoking cessation recommend differential regulation for ENDS and HTP. The results of this survey may be useful for health authorities, decision makers and researchers of the tobacco use and cessation field.
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.