ArticleSubstance use & misuse2024
Electronic Cigarette Device and Liquid Characteristics: Comparison of Self-Reports to User-Provided Pictures.
Article in Substance use & misuse, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Public health impact of disposable electronic cigarettes since 2021: a scoping review.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Cross-sectional comparison of sociodemographic and tobacco use characteristics of U.S. adults who regularly use leading electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) products.Tobacco induced diseases · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionSelf-reports of electronic cigarette (ECIG) device and liquid characteristics are not always accurate or consistent with characteristics as measured by researchers. Two methods for measuring ECIG characteristics were compared: user self-reports and rater-coded pictures.
methodsExclusive ECIG users (
resultsRegardless of how "don't know" responses were treated, agreement was highest for disposable (95.3-97.7%), refillable (96.3%), adjustable power (83.6-88.7%), and brand (77.9-80.4%), and lower for nicotine concentration (72.7%), nicotine formulation (58.6-79.4%), and flavor (66.2%). For device type, agreement was moderate using both term-based (67.9-78.8%) and picture resemblance-based (71.7%) items. For terms, the greatest discrepancy was for devices classified as "vape pens" by self-reports; of these, 70.6% were classified as "pods" by raters. For picture resemblance, ∼13% of users reported that their device resembled none of the pictures; raters classified these devices as USB-shaped pods (50.0%) and mods (23.8%).
conclusionsSelf-reports may be sufficient for measuring some characteristics (brand, disposable, refillable, adjustable power), but not others (nicotine concentration and formulation, and some flavor).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.