ArticleBMC public health2026
An updated pharmacovigilance evidence from U.S. tobacco problem reports following the FDA safety communication on e-cigarettes and seizures.
Article in BMC public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
objectiveFollowing the 2019 FDA safety communication on e-cigarette-related seizures, we conducted an updated pharmacovigilance analysis of FDA Tobacco Problem Reports using multimethod disproportionality approaches.
designPharmacovigilance study of spontaneously reported adverse events.
settingFDA Tobacco Problem Reports database, publicly available online.
methodsReports in which the affected individual was not the product user were excluded. Cases were classified as e-cigarette exposure if the product description mentioned "electronic cigarette," while all others were grouped as other tobacco products. Reported health problems were harmonized into standardized AE categories. Disproportionality analyses were conducted using four methods: Reporting Odds Ratio (ROR), Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR), Bayesian Confidence Propagation Neural Network (BCPNN), and shrinkage-based Observed-to-Expected ratio (O/E). A signal was defined when the lower bound of the 95% confidence or credibility interval exceeded the null.
resultsA total of 1,082 reports were analyzed, of which 891 (82.3%) involved electronic cigarettes and 191 (17.7%) involved other tobacco products. Combustible tobacco products accounted for 99 cases (9.15%) of other tobacco products, while other or unknown tobacco products represented 60 cases (5.55%). Smokeless or other nicotine products were least frequently reported, accounting for 32 cases (2.96%). Reports involving electronic cigarettes were significantly more likely to have been submitted before 2020 compared with reports involving other tobacco products (80.8% vs 50.8%; OR = 4.07, 95% CI 2.93-5.67; p < 0.001). Seizures emerged as the strongest and only consistent safety signal across all disproportionality methods. Respiratory outcomes, including shortness of breath, cough, pneumonia, and respiratory failure, were more frequently reported in e-cigarette cases and showed signals in ROR and PRR analyses, but did not remain significant when assessed with Bayesian approaches.
conclusionsSeizures represent a pharmacovigilance signal associated with e-cigarette use. Respiratory events were reported more often among e-cigarette users but did not meet conservative Bayesian thresholds. These findings highlight the need for continued surveillance, studies, and regulatory vigilance regarding the safety of e-cigarettes.
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.