Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36154615›Full record

SynthesisJournal of toxicology and environmental health. Part B, Critical reviews2022

Pulmonary effects of e-liquid flavors: a systematic review.

Felix Effah, Benjamin Taiwo, Deborah Baines, Alexis Bailey, Tim Marczylo

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of toxicology and environmental health. Part B, Critical reviews, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Vaping-related lung disease: a narrative review.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Toxicity and Appeal of Flavoured E-Cigarettes and Flavour Ban Outcomes: A Narrative Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. The respiratory epithelium in the era of vaping: insights fromEuropean respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2025
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Felix EffahPharmacology Section, St George's University of London, London, UK.
Benjamin TaiwoPhysiology Section, St George's University of London, London, UK.
Deborah BainesInfection and Immunity Institute, St George's University of London, London, UK.
Alexis BaileyPharmacology Section, St George's University of London, London, UK.
Tim MarczyloRadiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards, UK Health Security Agency, Didcot, UK.

Funding

Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are purported to be tobacco harm-reduction products whose degree of harm has been highly debated. EC use is considered less hazardous than smoking but is not expected to be harmless. Following the banning of e-liquid flavors in countries such as the US, Finland, Ukraine, and Hungary, there are growing concerns regarding the safety profile of e-liquid flavors used in ECs. While these are employed extensively in the food industry and are generally regarded as safe (GRAS) when ingested, GRAS status after inhalation is unclear. The aim of this review was to assess evidence from 38 reports on the adverse effects of flavored e-liquids on the respiratory system in both

Indexed as

Electronic Nicotine Delivery SystemsDiacetylFlavoring AgentsHumansMentholDiacetylFlavoring AgentsMentholElectronic cigarettee-liquidflavorslungtoxicity

Identifiers

PMID36154615
PMCPMC9590402

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.