ArticleLa Tunisie medicale2023
Article in La Tunisie medicale, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSince its appearance, E-cigarette (EC) has experienced a strong craze among those seeking to reduce their conventional cigarette (CC) consumption.
aimThis study aimed to compare EC to CC addictive power in actual users of EC and former smokers of CC.
methodsWe conducted a comparative cross-sectional study including 65 EC users and former smokers. They were collected on Facebook using a questionnaire including Fagrestrom score (FS).
resultsThe average total of FS was estimated at 3.45 ± 2 with EC vs 3.89±2.45 with CC (p=0.04). The dependence on the EC was strong in 8%, average in 25%, and weak in 35% of cases. The predictive factors of a medium to high dependence on EC were the duration of its consumption (p=0.008) and the daily quantity of e-liquid (p=0.009). The presence of medical history was inversely correlated with EC addiction. The duration of EC use was the only independent factor of dependence with an OR of 4.25 IC95% [1.019-17.729]. EC users continued to smoke TC in 68% of cases.
conclusionOur study shows that even if it remains less important than that of CC, the dependence on EC is not negligible.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38372554PMC11388089What 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.