↓ Skip to main content

The electronic cigarette: the new cigarette of the 21st century?*

Overview of attention for article published in Jornal de Pneumologia, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
wikipedia
12 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
154 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The electronic cigarette: the new cigarette of the 21st century?*
Published in
Jornal de Pneumologia, January 2014
DOI 10.1590/s1806-37132014000500013
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marli Maria Knorst, Igor Gorski Benedetto, Mariana Costa Hoffmeister, Marcelo Basso Gazzana

Abstract

The electronic nicotine delivery system, also known as the electronic cigarette, is generating considerable controversy, not only in the general population but also among health professionals. Smokers the world over have been increasingly using electronic cigarettes as an aid to smoking cessation and as a substitute for conventional cigarettes. There are few available data regarding the safety of electronic cigarettes. There is as yet no evidence that electronic cigarettes are effective in treating nicotine addiction. Some smokers have reported using electronic cigarettes for over a year, often combined with conventional cigarettes, thus prolonging nicotine addiction. In addition, the increasing use of electronic cigarettes by adolescents is a cause for concern. The objective of this study was to describe electronic cigarettes and their components, as well as to review the literature regarding their safety; their impact on smoking initiation and smoking cessation; and regulatory issues related to their use.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 154 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 151 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 21 14%
Student > Master 18 12%
Researcher 12 8%
Other 11 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 5%
Other 26 17%
Unknown 58 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 5%
Psychology 7 5%
Environmental Science 7 5%
Other 23 15%
Unknown 64 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 09 December 2023.
All research outputs
#6,796,515
of 25,501,527 outputs
Outputs from Jornal de Pneumologia
#105
of 719 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,050
of 319,797 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Jornal de Pneumologia
#10
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,501,527 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 719 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 319,797 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.