ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2022
Puff Bars, Tobacco Policy Evasion, and Nicotine Dependence: Content Analysis of Tweets.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Tobacco control policies discussed on social media: a scoping review.Tobacco control · 2026Article
- Response to the Netflix Docuseries "Big Vape: The Rise and Fall of JUUL": Mixed Methods Analysis of YouTube Comments Using Qualitative Coding and Topic Modeling.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Online Interest in Elf Bar in the United States: Google Health Trends Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- A multi-year characterization of confiscated vaping products from Virginia school youth.Journal of analytical toxicology · 2024Article
- When it comes to assessing the impact of e-cigarettes, estimates of device prevalence matter: the BIDI Stick disposable device.Harm reduction journal · 2023Article
- The associations between e-liquid characteristics and its pricing: Evidence from online vape shops.PloS one · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPuff Bars are e-cigarettes that continued marketing flavored products by exploiting the US Food and Drug Administration exemption for disposable devices.
objectiveThis study aimed to examine discussions related to Puff Bar on Twitter to identify tobacco regulation and policy themes as well as unanticipated outcomes of regulatory loopholes.
methodsOf 8519 original tweets related to Puff Bar collected from July 13, 2020, to August 13, 2020, a random 20% subsample (n=2661) was selected for qualitative coding of topics related to nicotine dependence and tobacco policy.
resultsOf the human-coded tweets, 2123 (80.2%) were coded as relevant to Puff Bar as the main topic. Of those tweets, 698 (32.9%) discussed tobacco policy, including flavors (n=320, 45.9%), regulations (n=124, 17.8%), purchases (n=117, 16.8%), and other products (n=110, 15.8%). Approximately 22% (n=480) of the tweets referenced dependence, including lack of access (n=273, 56.9%), appetite suppression (n=59, 12.3%), frequent use (n=47, 9.8%), and self-reported dependence (n=110, 22.9%).
conclusionsThis study adds to the growing evidence base that the US Food and Drug Administration ban of e-cigarette flavors did not reduce interest, but rather shifted the discussion to brands utilizing a loophole that allowed flavored products to continue to be sold in disposable devices. Until comprehensive tobacco policy legislation is developed, new products or loopholes will continue to supply nicotine demand.
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.