ArticleNicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco2026
A Preconception Cohort Study of Nicotine Vaping and Incidence of Spontaneous Abortion.
Article in Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionWe evaluated the association of preconception nicotine vaping among female and male partners with spontaneous abortion (SAB) incidence, and the extent to which associations vary by cigarette smoking. AIMS AND
methodsIn a prospective cohort study, 6136 participants assigned female-at-birth and 1688 of their partners assigned male-at-birth reported preconception nicotine vaping and cigarette smoking via online questionnaire. Female partners reported incident pregnancies and outcomes (eg, SAB) on follow-up questionnaires completed every 8 weeks and in early and late pregnancy. We used multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models estimated adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the association between vaping and SAB incidence, overall and by smoking history.
resultsMean age was 30 and 32 for females and males, respectively. Among females, 13% reported ever-vaping and 14% reported ever-smoking, while 19% of males reported ever-vaping and 24% reported ever-smoking. Relative to female never-vapers, aHRs were 1.03 for former vaping (95% CI = 0.86% to 1.24%) and 0.91 for current vaping (95% CI = 0.61% to 1.36%). Former and current vaping were also not appreciably associated with SAB rate among ever-smokers. In the couple-based cohort, relative to male never-vapers, aHRs were 1.00 for male former vapers (95% CI = 0.74% to 1.35%) and 0.67 for male current vapers (95% CI = 0.35% to 1.25%). Additional analysis of female participants after stratifying by finer categories of smoking status did not identify any meaningful association with SAB incidence.
conclusionsThe current study found that vaping in either partner during the preconception period was not associated with SAB incidence. Cigarette smoking also did not modify this association. IMPLICATIONS: The rising prevalence of vaping invokes greater scrutiny on its possible adverse reproductive effects. Studies have linked vaping to adverse birth events, and clear guidance is made to avoid vaping in pregnant people. However, guidance about vaping during preconception is less clear despite research showing how preconception behaviors are linked to adverse pregnancies and birth outcomes. Our cohort study finds little association between preconception vaping and SAB. In the context of established risks of vaping on fetal outcomes, this study highlights the need for additional evidence-based information about preconception vaping to help couples make lifestyle decisions for optimal reproductive outcomes.
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.