Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34749706›Full record

ReviewBMC public health2021

Improving on estimates of the potential relative harm to health from using modern ENDS (vaping) compared to tobacco smoking.

Nick Wilson, Jennifer A Summers, Driss Ait Ouakrim, Janet Hoek, Richard Edwards, Tony Blakely

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 22 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  4. Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. E-cigarette attitudes and behaviours amongst 15-30-year-olds in the UK.Journal of public health (Oxford, England) · 2023
    Article
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Nick WilsonUniversity of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand. nick.wilson@otago.ac.nz.
Jennifer A SummersUniversity of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand.
Driss Ait OuakrimPopulation Interventions, Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Janet HoekUniversity of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand.
Richard EdwardsUniversity of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand.
Tony BlakelyPopulation Interventions, Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
University of Otago · NZUniversity of Melbourne · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough the harm to health from electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) compared to smoked tobacco remains highly uncertain, society and governments still need to know the likely range of the relative harm to inform regulatory policies for ENDS and smoking.

methodsWe identified biomarkers with specificity of association with different disease groupings e.g., volatile organic compound (VOCs) for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; and tobacco-specific N´-nitrosamines (TSNAs) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) for all cancers. We conducted a review of recent studies (post January 2017) that compared these biomarkers between people exclusively using ENDS and those exclusively smoking tobacco. The percentage differences in these biomarkers, weighted by study size and adjusted for acrolein from other sources, were used as a proxy for the assumed percentage difference in disease harm between ENDS and smoking. These relative differences were applied to previously modelled estimates of smoking-related health loss (in health-adjusted life-years; HALYs).

resultsThe respective relative biomarker levels (ENDS vs smoking) were: 28% for respiratory diseases (five results, three studies); 42% for cancers (five results, four studies); and 35% for cardiovascular (seven results, four studies). When integrated with the HALY impacts by disease, the overall harm to health from ENDS was estimated to be 33% that of smoking.

conclusionsThis analysis, suggests that the use of modern ENDS devices (vaping) could be a third as harmful to health as smoking in a high-income country setting. But this estimate is based on a limited number of biomarker studies and is best be considered a likely upper level of ENDS risk given potential biases in our method (i.e., the biomarkers used being correlated with more unaccounted for toxicants in smoking compared to with using ENDS).

Indexed as

Electronic Nicotine Delivery SystemsVapingHealthy Life ExpectancyHumansTobacco SmokingTobacco Use Cessation DevicesBiomarkersElectronic nicotine delivery systemsRelative harmSmokingVaping

Identifiers

PMID34749706
PMCPMC8577029
OpenAlexW3213019959

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.