ReviewInternal and emergency medicine2025
Association between electronic cigarette use and respiratory outcomes among people with no established smoking history: a comprehensive review and critical appraisal.
Review in Internal and emergency medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cardiopulmonary effects of very low nicotine content cigarettes with and without access to e-cigarettes in vulnerable populations.Preventive medicine · 2025Trial
- Differential Respiratory Responses to Incremental Positive End-Expiratory Pressure Among Healthy Adults, Cigarette Smokers, Electronic Cigarette Users, and Individuals with Asthma.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Differences in respiratory wheezing between current exclusive e-cigarette users, current exclusive cigarette smokers, and never users of either product: findings from a population-based study.Harm reduction journal · 2025Article
- When meta-analysis misleads: the need for methodological integrity in e-cigarette research.Internal and emergency medicine · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Nicotine consumption in many countries is shifting away from combustible cigarettes and toward electronic cigarettes (ECs). Understanding the overall population-level impact requires weighing their possible benefits (e.g., for smoking cessation/switching) vs harms (e.g., long-term health risks). However, current evidence on health risks is limited by the absence of long-term data and confounding by prior cigarette smoking history. Focusing on short- to medium-term respiratory outcomes associated with EC use among people who never smoked (PWNS) is informative. We perform a narrative review and critical appraisal of studies examining the prospective association between exclusive EC use and respiratory outcomes among PWNS (either true never-smoking or never-established smoking). We included 12 studies with prospective designs that examine a range of respiratory outcomes subsequent to EC use among PWNS. Eight studies did not find statistically significant differences in respiratory risk associated with baseline EC use. The remaining five studies reported a significant association in at least one analysis, but in four of these studies, associations were not robust across models. Limitations included overreliance on data from the U.S. Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health, uncertain directionality (i.e., pre-existing respiratory conditions were not always ruled out), confounding by other combustible tobacco use, and small sample sizes. All but one study lacked clear and statistically significant evidence of self-reported respiratory diagnoses associated with EC use among PWNS, or showed a tenuous association with mild respiratory symptoms. This has favorable implications for ECs' population health impact; however, small sample sizes and statistical biases limit this evidence. A formal systematic review on this topic is forthcoming.
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.