↓ Skip to main content

Electronic Cigarettes for Smoking Cessation

Overview of attention for article published in Current Cardiology Reports, October 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
wikipedia
12 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
93 Mendeley
Title
Electronic Cigarettes for Smoking Cessation
Published in
Current Cardiology Reports, October 2014
DOI 10.1007/s11886-014-0538-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christopher Bullen

Abstract

Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are novel vaporising devices that, similar to nicotine replacement treatments, deliver nicotine but in lower amounts and less swiftly than tobacco smoking. However, they enjoy far greater popularity than these medications due in part to their behaviour replacement characteristics. Evidence for their efficacy as cessation aids, based on several randomised trials of now obsolete e-cigarettes, suggests a modest effect equivalent to nicotine patch. E-cigarettes are almost certainly far less harmful than tobacco smoking, but the health effects of long-term use are as yet unknown. Dual use is common and almost as harmful as usual smoking unless it leads to quitting. Population effects, such as re-normalising smoking behaviour, are a concern. Clinicians should be knowledgeable about these products. If patients who smoke are unwilling to quit or cannot succeed using evidence-based approaches, e-cigarettes may be an option to be considered after discussing the limitations of current knowledge.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users 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 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 91 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 16 17%
Researcher 12 13%
Student > Master 11 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 6%
Other 15 16%
Unknown 25 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 16 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 17%
Social Sciences 8 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 4%
Other 16 17%
Unknown 26 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 04 December 2023.
All research outputs
#4,768,582
of 23,544,006 outputs
Outputs from Current Cardiology Reports
#207
of 1,028 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,908
of 257,726 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Cardiology Reports
#3
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,544,006 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,028 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 257,726 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.