Trial reportScientific reports2023
Abuse liability of two electronic nicotine delivery systems compared with combustible cigarettes and nicotine gum from an open-label randomized crossover study.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Abuse Liability of Electronic Cigarettes in Never-Smoking Electronic Cigarette Users.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2025Trial
- Assessment of Abuse Liability and Nicotine Pharmacokinetics of glo Heated Tobacco Products in a Randomized, Crossover Study.European journal of drug metabolism and pharmacokinetics · 2024Trial
- Assessment of nicotine pharmacokinetics and abuse liability in randomized, crossover studies of Vuse Alto electronic nicotine delivery systems.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (ENDS): Implications for the Clinician.Pulmonary therapy · 2025Review
- Randomized crossover clinical studies to assess abuse liability and nicotine pharmacokinetics of Velo Oral Nicotine pouches.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
An assessment of the likelihood of use and abuse potential for new tobacco products is an important part of tobacco product regulation in the United States and abroad. This paper reports the results of a randomized, open-label, crossover clinical study that assessed factors related to product adoption and abuse liability (AL), comparing two closed electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) products to combustible cigarettes and nicotine gum, high- and low-AL comparator products, respectively. During an 11-day confinement period that included multiple product familiarization sessions, healthy adult smokers participated in AL test sessions to evaluate the abuse liability of each product. During these test sessions, changes in subjective measures; speed and amount of nicotine uptake; and maximum changes in physiological effects before, during, and after use of each assigned product were assessed over 4 h. Positive subjective effects measures scores such as product-liking and overall intent to use again were highest for cigarettes, followed by the Vuse ENDS, with nicotine gum consistently having the lowest scores. The PK results (C
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.