ReviewCureus2024
Assessment of Respiratory Health Implications of Vaping: A Systematic Review of Toxicity Mechanisms and Adverse Effects of Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Unmasking the appeal - tobacco and vaping companies have recruited a new generation of nicotine dependents.Public health action · 2026Article
- The emerging role of oral nicotine pouches in tobacco harm reduction.Internal and emergency medicine · 2026Review
- Impact of E-Cigarette Use on Circadian Proteins and Cardiovascular Risk Markers.Journal of cardiovascular translational research · 2026Article
- Acute respiratory and ocular effects of electronic cigarettes: A pre-post experimental study in healthy users.Tobacco prevention & cessation · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
E-cigarettes are thought to aid in tobacco smoking cessation, but there are concerns about their overall effectiveness and safety for the general population, particularly adults. This review aims to investigate the mechanisms of toxicity and adverse effects of e-cigarettes on the respiratory system, comparing these effects with those of conventional smoking. A systematic review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Searches were performed on PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library using keywords, controlled vocabulary, and text words, with the following criteria: studies published in English from 2014 to 2024, open access, peer-reviewed, and full-text availability. Study selection, quality assessment, and data extraction were carried out by two independent reviewers. The Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool was used to evaluate the risk of bias in included randomized controlled trials, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tool was employed to assess the strength of evidence and determine its generalizability. Electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) have diverse mechanisms of toxicity, including inflammation, hypoxia, cardiovascular stress, and metabolic changes. Reported adverse effects include cough, throat irritation, nausea, and hemodynamic changes. However, ENDS are associated with fewer risks compared to conventional cigarette smoking. ENDS users experience fewer respiratory and cardiovascular issues and have lower levels of biomarkers such as NNAL and CO compared to traditional smokers. Additionally, ENDS are more effective than nicotine replacement therapy (nicotine patches) for smoking cessation, particularly in pregnant women. The side effects of ENDS and nicotine-free vaping are similar to those of conventional smoking in pregnant women, with the exception of a lower birth weight among newborns exposed to ENDS (p < 0.05). ENDS present a complex balance of benefits and risks regarding respiratory health. While there are adverse effects, ENDS are considered less detrimental than conventional smoking and a viable option for smoking cessation. Longitudinal studies are needed to evaluate their safety with long-term use (>16 weeks). Policymakers and health practitioners should use these findings to develop balanced public health policies that weigh the benefits of ENDS against potential health risks, enabling informed decision-making for users.
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.