ArticlePloS one2026
Vaping during pregnancy and maternal, fetal, and infant health outcomes: A scoping review of human and animal studies.
Article in PloS one, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe prevalence of vaping, defined as the use of e-cigarettes, during pregnancy is increasing, but its effects on maternal, fetal, and infant health remain incompletely understood. Human studies are heterogeneous and largely observational with a primary focus on neonatal and infant outcomes and limited assessment of maternal physiology. In contrast, pre-clinical animal studies suggest potential biological effects across maternal vascular, respiratory, metabolic, and neurodevelopmental systems. A comprehensive mapping of the existing evidence is therefore needed to characterise the scope of research to date and identify key gaps in the literature.
objectiveTo map the extent, range, and nature of human and animal studies examining the effects of vaping during pregnancy on maternal, fetal, and infant health outcomes, and to describe key methodological features and gaps to inform future research. MATERIALS AND
methodsA scoping review was conducted following Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Electronic database searches for human and animal studies examining the effects of vaping during pregnancy were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, PsycInfo, and grey literature, which were completed September 10th, 2025. Data were extracted on study design, population, exposure definitions, outcome domains, and use of biochemical exposure validation. No formal risk-of-bias assessment was undertaken, consistent with scoping review methodology, instead study characteristics were mapped descriptively.
results64 studies were included (34 animal, 30 human). Human studies were predominantly observational and varied in design. Most relied on retrospective self-report without biochemical validation, potentially contributing to contradictory findings. Outcomes were focused mainly on perinatal measures, with maternal outcomes limited to breastfeeding, postpartum depression, and gestational weight gain, and little or no assessment of maternal physiological outcomes such as vascular or autonomic function. In contrast, animal studies frequently investigated mechanistic outcomes, suggesting potential biological effects across multiple systems including metabolic, respiratory, neurobehavioural, and cardiovascular impairment, with greater severity in nicotine-exposed groups. However, exposure paradigms and species differences limit direct translation to human pregnancy.
conclusionThe existing evidence base on vaping in pregnancy is characterised by substantial heterogeneity and notable gaps. In particular, there is a lack of prospective human studies incorporating objective exposure assessment and mechanistic maternal outcomes. Comparative analyses frequently evaluated vaping relative to combustible cigarette smoking. However, substantial variability in exposure classification, comparator groups, and adjustment for confounding limits interpretability. Animal studies more thoroughly examine mechanistic pathways and multiple organ systems. However physiological differences and unrealistic exposure models limit generalisability to human pregnancy. Overall, the current literature is insufficient to draw firm conclusions regarding risk. These findings highlight priorities for future research to strengthen the evidence base and improve understanding of the biological effects of vaping during pregnancy.
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.