Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37279173›Full record

ArticleNicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco2023

Assessing Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems Device Type Accurately in Surveys.

Bekir Kaplan, Elizabeth Crespi, Jeffrey J Hardesty, Joanna E Cohen

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
5.2field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Discordant device/brand reporting among adolescents who used e-cigarettes in the National Youth Tobacco Survey.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Bekir KaplanDepartment of Health, Behavior, and Society, Institute for Global Tobacco Control, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2497-4742
Elizabeth CrespiDepartment of Health, Behavior, and Society, Institute for Global Tobacco Control, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Jeffrey J HardestyDepartment of Health, Behavior, and Society, Institute for Global Tobacco Control, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4705-4976
Joanna E CohenDepartment of Health, Behavior, and Society, Institute for Global Tobacco Control, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3869-3637
Johns Hopkins University · US

Funding

Project 4: Using a prospective cohort survey to test population-level predictions generated by Projects 1-3U54DA036105 · NIDA · VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY · PI FAGAN, PEBBLES · 2018 to 2022
$20.8M
NIDA NIH HHS U54 DA036105
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) market is highly heterogeneous and changing rapidly in the United States, making classification of devices complicated, especially for surveys. We assessed the percentage of concordant responses between self-reported device type and device type reported by manufacturer/retailer sites for three ENDS brands. AIMS AND

methodsPopulation Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study wave 5 (2018-2019) asked adult ENDS users about their ENDS device type with the following multiple-choice question: "What kind of electronic nicotine product [is/was] it?" with response options: (1) A disposable device, (2) A device that uses replaceable prefilled cartridges, (3) A device with a tank that you refill with liquids (4) A mod system, and (5) Something else. Participants using only one ENDS device and reporting brands of JUUL (n = 579), Markten (n = 30), or Vuse (n = 47) were included. Responses were dichotomized as "concordant=1" (prefilled cartridge for these three brands) and "discordant = 0" (other responses) to assess the concordance.

resultsThe overall concordance between self-reports and manufacturer/retail sites was 81.8% (n = 537). This percentage was 82.7% (n = 37) among Vuse users, 82.6% (n = 479) among JUUL users, and 69.1% (n = 21) among Markten users. Almost one in three people who use Markten did not indicate that their device uses replaceable prefilled cartridges.

conclusionsWhile at least 70% concordance could be acceptable, collecting more information about device type (eg, liquid container (pod/cartridge/tank), refillability; and submitting pictures) may improve the accuracy of the information. IMPLICATIONS: This study is particularly relevant for researchers analyzing smaller samples for example when examining disparities. Monitoring the characteristics of ENDS accurately in population-based studies is critical for regulatory authorities to understand ENDS toxicity, addiction, health effects, and use behaviors at the population level. There is evidence that higher concordance can be achieved with other questions- and methods. Adjusting survey questions about ENDS device type (eg, more descriptive response options, inclusion of separate questions asking about tank, pod, cartridge) and potentially including photos of participants' devices may help to classify ENDS device types more accurately.

Indexed as

Electronic Nicotine Delivery SystemsTobacco ProductsVapingAdultHumansMarketingNicotineSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited StatesNicotine

Identifiers

PMID37279173
PMCPMC10445248
OpenAlexW4379598840

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.