ArticleInternal and emergency medicine2025
The potential of smoke-free products to reduce harm for smokers: what does the toxicological evidence say?
Article 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 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.
- E-cigarette use among individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.Internal and emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Nicotine pouches, oral cancer and tobacco harm reduction: current evidence and research priorities.Frontiers in oral health · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There continues to be a high prevalence of smoking in many European countries. In Germany, for example, there are over 20 million smokers, most of whom exhibit little desire to quit. In other countries, the adoption of smoke-free products (SFPs), including e-cigarettes (ECs), heated tobacco products (HTPs), and oral nicotine pouches (NPs), is helping smokers to transition away from cigarettes. In Germany, debate about SFPs primarily focuses on their potential harms to non-smokers, particularly the underage population. This debate seems one-sided: raising concerns alone does not sufficiently inform the 20 million smokers about the comparative health risks of cigarettes and SFPs, an issue increasingly echoed by practitioners and researchers. Instead, the current discourse is dominated by misconceptions, as evidenced by surveys on smokers' perceptions of the relative health risks of cigarettes and SFPs. Considering the gravity of the topic, it is essential to revisit the scientific facts. The growing evidence shows that SFPs, including ECs, HTPs, and NPs, expose users to significantly fewer numbers and lower concentrations of toxicants relative to combustible cigarettes. In vitro studies and biomarkers of harm in SFP users suggest that these lower emissions translate to reduced risks of harm. It is the nature of science that the evidence will never be complete, but the totality of data should be considered when discussing the correct handling of SFPs. At present, these data suggest that SFPs can play a useful role in curbing the individual and societal risks associated with smoking.
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.