↓ Skip to main content

Very Low Nicotine Content Cigarettes and Potential Consequences on Cardiovascular Disease

Overview of attention for article published in Current Cardiovascular Risk Reports, September 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 Mendeley
Title
Very Low Nicotine Content Cigarettes and Potential Consequences on Cardiovascular Disease
Published in
Current Cardiovascular Risk Reports, September 2012
DOI 10.1007/s12170-012-0266-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Danielle L. Joel, Rachel L. Denlinger, Sarah S. Dermody, Dorothy K. Hatsukami, Neal L. Benowitz, Eric C. Donny

Abstract

Cigarette smoking remains highly prevalent in the U.S. and contributes significantly to cardiovascular disease (CVD). Tobacco control policies, including product regulation, can reduce smoking-related harm. One approach being considered in the U.S. is for the FDA to set a low nicotine standard for cigarettes. Such a standard could result in multiple beneficial outcomes including reduced cardiovascular toxicity related to nicotine, reduced smoking intensity in current smokers, increased cessation rates, decreased development of smoking dependence in youth, and decreased passive smoke exposure. Consequently, CVD risk in the U.S. could be dramatically improved by nicotine reduction in cigarettes. Possible pathways linking nicotine reduction in cigarettes to decreased CVD risk are discussed, while potential unintended consequences that could offset expected gains are also presented. Gaps in the literature, including limited data on CVD biomarkers and long-term CVD outcomes following the use of very low nicotine cigarettes, are discussed to highlight areas for new research.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 22%
Other 3 17%
Student > Master 3 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 11%
Student > Bachelor 2 11%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 2 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 44%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 11%
Psychology 2 11%
Social Sciences 2 11%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 2 11%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 January 2015.
All research outputs
#6,920,128
of 22,693,205 outputs
Outputs from Current Cardiovascular Risk Reports
#76
of 219 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,718
of 170,307 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Cardiovascular Risk Reports
#2
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,693,205 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 219 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 170,307 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.