ReviewInternal and emergency medicine2025
'E-cigarette smoking' is a misleading term: a critical review of its use in academic literature.
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 6 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
6 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
- Cigarette smoking history, e-cigarette use, and Long COVID: a population-based analysis.Internal and emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Prevalence and correlates of e-cigarette use among older adults aged 60 years and over.European geriatric medicine · 2026Article
- Time since cigarette smoking cessation and self-rated health among exclusive e-cigarette users.Irish journal of medical science · 2026Article
- Cardiovascular Consequences of E-Cigarettes: A New Challenge for Cardiologists.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Predictors of e-cigarette use among individuals with asthma: findings from a cross-sectional population-based study.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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The terminology used to describe e-cigarette-related behaviours in academic literature is critical for accurate communication and interpretation. Despite fundamental differences between e-cigarette use (vaping) and tobacco smoking, terms such as "e-cigarette smoking" have been used to refer to vaping, potentially conflating the two behaviours. This study aims to assess the use of the term "e-cigarette smoking" and its variants in peer-reviewed literature and discuss the implications of their usage. A review of academic literature published between 2015 and 2024 was conducted using Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and ProQuest databases. Searches included terms such as "e-cigarette smoking" and related variants, with database-specific filters applied to exclude irrelevant document types. A supplementary search in Google Scholar was performed to capture broader usage, including grey literature. The search identified 613 articles in Embase, 462 in Web of Science, 407 in ScienceDirect, 282 in Scopus and 121 in ProQuest, highlighting the widespread use of "e-cigarette smoking" and related terms. The Google Scholar search returned approximately 4680 results, reflecting the widespread and informal use of "e-cigarette smoking" across diverse publication types, including grey literature. The term has also appeared in highly cited and recent studies in ways that conflate e-cigarette use with smoking, obscuring the fundamental differences between these distinct behaviours. The use of "e-cigarette smoking" and its variants in academic literature has notable implications for research integrity, addiction science, public health, and policy. Misleading terminology can contribute to distorted understandings of nicotine dependence, complicate harm reduction strategies, and risk shaping restrictive policies that fail to differentiate e-cigarette use from smoking. Standardising terminology in academic literature is essential to ensure accurate communication, support evidence-based policymaking, and enhance public health initiatives.
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.