↓ Skip to main content

Why public health people are more worried than excited over e-cigarettes

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
44 X users
facebook
6 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
97 Mendeley
Title
Why public health people are more worried than excited over e-cigarettes
Published in
BMC Medicine, December 2014
DOI 10.1186/s12916-014-0226-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Charlotta Pisinger

Abstract

The research field on e-cigarettes is characterized by severe methodological problems, severe conflicts of interest, relatively few and often small studies, inconsistencies and contradictions in results, and a lack of long-term follow-up. Therefore, no firm conclusions can be drawn on the harm of e-cigarettes, but they can hardly be called safe. Experimental studies indicate negative health effects and, amongst others, the major ingredient propylene glycol warrants concern. Growing evidence raises doubt about the efficacy of e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation aid. Unfortunately, it seems that many smokers use e-cigarettes with the intention to quit but switch to long-term use of e-cigarettes or dual use. Use is spreading rapidly to minors, ex-smokers, and never-smokers. It is questionable whether the potential health benefits obtained by some smokers outweigh the potential harm by use of non-smokers, of undermining of complete cessation, smokers' dual use, and of eventual re-normalization of smoking. Even if e-cigarettes are significantly less harmful than conventional cigarettes, the product may have a very negative impact on public health if its use is spread to a large part of the population.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 44 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 97 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Norway 1 1%
Unknown 94 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 16%
Researcher 15 15%
Other 9 9%
Student > Bachelor 8 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 7%
Other 18 19%
Unknown 24 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 14%
Psychology 13 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 7%
Environmental Science 5 5%
Other 21 22%
Unknown 30 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 82. 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 30 May 2018.
All research outputs
#530,297
of 25,761,363 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#399
of 4,088 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,246
of 370,538 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#4
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,761,363 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,088 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 46.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 370,538 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 63 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.