↓ Skip to main content

Cigarette and e-cigarette dual use and risk of cardiopulmonary symptoms in the Health eHeart Study

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, July 2018
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 (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
13 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
4 policy sources
twitter
59 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
video
1 YouTube creator

Readers on

mendeley
235 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
Cigarette and e-cigarette dual use and risk of cardiopulmonary symptoms in the Health eHeart Study
Published in
PLOS ONE, July 2018
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0198681
Pubmed ID
Authors

Julie B. Wang, Jeffrey E. Olgin, Gregory Nah, Eric Vittinghoff, Janine K. Cataldo, Mark J. Pletcher, Gregory M. Marcus

Abstract

E-cigarettes are promoted as healthier alternatives to conventional cigarettes. Many cigarette smokers use both products. It is unknown whether the additional use of e-cigarettes among cigarette smokers (dual users) is associated with reduced exposure to tobacco-related health risks. Cross-sectional analysis was performed using baseline data from the Health eHeart Study, among English-speaking adults, mostly from the United States. Cigarette use (# cigarettes/day) and/or e-cigarette use (# days, # cartridges, and # puffs) were compared between cigarette only users vs. dual users. Additionally, we examined cardiopulmonary symptoms/ conditions across product use: no product (neither), e-cigarettes only, cigarettes only, and dual use. Among 39,747 participants, 573 (1.4%) reported e-cigarette only use, 1,693 (4.3%) reported cigarette only use, and 514 (1.3%) dual use. Dual users, compared to cigarette only users, reported a greater median (IQR) number of cigarettes per day, 10.0 (4.0-20.0) vs. 9.0 (3.0-15.0) (p < .0001), a lower (worse) median (IQR) SF-12 general health score, 3.3 (2.8-3.8) vs. 3.5 (2.8-3.9) (p = .0014), and a higher (worse) median (IQR) breathing difficulty score in the past month, 2.0 (1.0-2.0) vs. 1.0 (1.0-2.0) (p = .001). Of the 19 cardiopulmonary symptoms/ conditions, having a history of arrhythmia was significantly different between cigarette only users (14.2%) and dual users (17.8%) (p = .02). In this sample, dual use was not associated with reduced exposure to either (i) cigarettes, compared to cigarette only users or (ii) e-cigarettes, compared to e-cigarette only users. E-cigarette only use, compared to no product use, was associated with lower general health scores, higher breathing difficulty scores (typically and past month), and greater proportions of those who responded 'yes' to having chest pain, palpitations, coronary heart disease, arrhythmia, COPD, and asthma. These data suggest the added use of e-cigarettes alone may have contributed to cardiopulmonary health risks particularly respiratory health risks.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 59 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 235 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 235 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 29 12%
Researcher 27 11%
Student > Master 25 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 6%
Other 45 19%
Unknown 77 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 51 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 10%
Psychology 11 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 10 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 3%
Other 44 19%
Unknown 87 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 157. 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 14 November 2023.
All research outputs
#262,885
of 25,595,500 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#3,786
of 223,261 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,490
of 341,781 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#69
of 3,315 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,595,500 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 223,261 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 341,781 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 3,315 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 97% of its contemporaries.