ReviewFrontiers in chemistry2024
Analytical methods and experimental quality in studies targeting carbonyls in electronic cigarette aerosols.
Review in Frontiers in chemistry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Association between electronic cigarette use and prediabetes, diabetes, and insulin resistance: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Internal and emergency medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Flavoring Compound Chemical Class and Vaping Conditions Determine Toxic Carbonyl Emissions from E-Cigarettes.Chemical research in toxicology · 2026Article
- Cytotoxic and oxidative effects of commercially available propylene glycol (PG) and vegetable glycerin (VG): Common humectants in electronic cigarettes.Toxicology reports · 2025Article
- Toxicity of humectants propylene glycol and vegetable glycerin in electronic nicotine delivery systems.Toxicology letters · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We provide an extensive review of 14 studies (11 independent and three industry-funded) on emissions generated by Electronic Cigarettes (ECs), specifically focusing on the evaluation of carbonyls present in these emissions and emphasizing a meticulous evaluation of their analytical methods and experimental procedures. Since the presence of carbonyl by-products in EC aerosol is concerning, it is important to evaluate the reliability of emission studies quantifying these compounds by verifying their compliance with the following criteria of experimental quality: authors must 1) supply sufficient information on the devices and experimental procedures to allow for potentially reproducing or replicating the experiments, 2) use of appropriate puffing protocols that approach consumer usage as best as possible, 3) use of appropriate analytical methods and 4) usage of blank samples to avoid false positive detection. Outcomes were classified in terms of the fulfilment of these conditions as reliable in seven studies, partially reliable in five studies, and unreliable in two studies. However, only five studies used blank samples and six studies failed the reproducibility criterion. Carbonyl yields were far below their yields in tobacco smoke in all reproducible studies, even in the partially reliable ones, thus supporting the role of ECs (when properly tested and operated) as harm reduction products. This review highlights the necessity to evaluate the quality of laboratory standards in testing EC emissions to achieve an objective assessment of the risk profile of ECs.
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.