Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38162291›Full record

ArticleHuman and ecological risk assessment : HERA2016

Has the mist been peered through? Revisiting the building blocks of human health risk assessment for electronic cigarette use.

Qingyu Meng, Stephan Schwander, Yeongkwon Son, Cesar Rivas, Cristine Delveno, Judith Graber, Daniel Giovenco, Uma Bruen, Rose Mathew, Mark Robson

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Human and ecological risk assessment : HERA, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 34% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. The Impact of Device Settings, Use Patterns, and Flavorings on Carbonyl Emissions from Electronic Cigarettes.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Article
  4. Carbonyls and Carbon Monoxide Emissions from Electronic Cigarettes Affected by Device Type and Use Patterns.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Qingyu MengSchool of Public Health, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ, USA.
Stephan SchwanderSchool of Public Health, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ, USA.
Yeongkwon SonSchool of Public Health, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ, USA.
Cesar RivasSchool of Public Health, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ, USA.
Cristine DelvenoSchool of Public Health, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ, USA.
Judith GraberSchool of Public Health, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ, USA.
Daniel GiovencoSchool of Public Health, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ, USA.
Uma BruenSchool of Public Health, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ, USA.
Rose MathewSchool of Public Health, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ, USA.
Mark RobsonSchool of Public Health, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ, USA.
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey · USEnvironmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute · US

Funding

Air Pollution Particle Effects on Human Antimycobacterial ImmunityR01ES020382 · NIEHS · UNIV OF MED/DENT NJ-SCH OF PUBLIC HEALTH · PI STEPHAN K SCHWANDER · 2012 to 2026
$5.3M
NIEHS NIH HHS R01 ES020382
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Electronic cigarettes, battery-powered nicotine delivery devices, have been increasingly used in the past decade. However, human health risks associated with E-vapor inhalation have not been fully characterized. Aims: This critical review aims at revisiting the building blocks of human health risk assessment, summarizing the state of the science, and identifying major knowledge gaps in exposure assessment and toxicity assessment. Approach: A qualitative research synthesis was conducted based on scientific findings reported to date in peer-reviewed publications and our own preliminary experimental results. Results: There are a limited number of studies across all lines of evidence on E-vapor exposure and the health impacts of E-vapor inhalation. E-cigarette may be as efficient as traditional cigarettes in nicotine delivery, especially for experienced users, and studies suggest lower emissions of air toxics from E-cigarette vapor and lower second- and third-hand vapor exposures. But some toxic emissions may surpass those of traditional cigarettes, especially under high voltage vaping conditions. Experimentally, E-vapor/E-liquid exposures reduce cell viability and promote pro-inflammatory cytokine release. User vulnerability to concomitant environmental agent exposures, such as viruses and bacteria, may potentially be increased. Conclusion: While evidence to date suggests that e-cigarettes release fewer toxins and carcinogens and compared to cigarettes, E-vapor is not safe and might adversely affect human immune functions. Major knowledge gaps hinder risk quantification and effective regulation of E-cigarette products including: 1) lack of long-term exposure studies; 2) lack of understanding of biological mechanisms associated with exposure; and 3) lack of integration of exposure and toxicity assessments.,. Better data are needed to inform human health risk assessments and to better understand the public health impact of E-vapor exposures.

Indexed as

Electronic CigaretteExposure AssesssmentMeta-analysis

Identifiers

PMID38162291
PMCPMC10756495
OpenAlexW2206759585

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.