Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36833814›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2023

A Comparative Analysis of E-Cigarette and Cigarette Posts on Instagram.

Young-Shin Lim, Ji Young Lee

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Instagram Memes of Oral Nicotine Pouches: Content Analysis Study.Online journal of public health informatics · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Characterizing Anti-Vaping Posts for Effective Communication on Instagram Using Multimodal Deep Learning.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2024
    Article
  5. 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

2 authors.

Young-Shin LimGraduate School of Business, Sejong University, Seoul 05006, Republic of Korea.
Ji Young LeeIndependent Researcher.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

E-cigarette use has grown rapidly over the past decade and become a threat to public health. Marketing-especially through social media-has contributed significantly to this growth, which suggests that regulating content in social media will be critical in supporting efforts to reverse this trend. A content analysis was performed to compare 254 e-cigarette posts on Instagram with 228 cigarette posts on the same platform. The majority of e-cigarette posts were from e-cigarette companies (40.9%) and industry people (18.5%), whereas the majority of cigarette posts were from laypeople (76.8%). More e-cigarette posts than cigarette posts appeared to have a marketing intent (56.3% vs. 1.3%), and brand representation in photographs/videos was more frequent in the e-cigarette posts than in the cigarette posts (63.0% vs. 15.8%). Further, compared with the e-cigarette posts, the cigarette posts were more likely to portray daily life (73.2% vs. 41.3%) and humans (80.3% vs. 43.7%) in the photograph/video. The cigarette posts also portrayed smoking much more often than the e-cigarette posts portrayed vaping (67.1% vs. 21.3%). The study findings broaden the field's understanding of cigarette and e-cigarette content on Instagram and social media, and have implications for monitoring and regulating content for e-cigarettes and cigarettes.

Indexed as

Electronic Nicotine Delivery SystemsSocial MediaTobacco ProductsVapingHumansMarketingSmokingcigarettecontent analysise-cigaretteInstagrampublic healthsocial media

Identifiers

PMID36833814
PMCPMC9967293

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.