ReviewCureus2025
A Review of Current Knowledge and Guidelines on E-cigarettes: A Healthier Alternative to Classic Cigarettes or Equally Dangerous?
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This review was written to summarize the current scientific findings on the safety of e-cigarettes and compare their impact on human disease incidence with that of conventional cigarettes. Due to the significant increase in the popularity of e-cigarettes, especially among adolescents and young adults, we began to wonder whether this form of smoking is actually safer and carries a lower risk of developing and progressing respiratory and circulatory diseases and whether vaping can in some way support users of classic cigarettes in the process of completely quitting smoking. To this end, we reviewed a number of studies published over the years in medical databases, concluding that despite the lower toxicity levels in e-cigarettes, the risk of lung cancer is the same as with conventional cigarettes. The main differences in disease risk occur in cardiovascular and respiratory diseases. E-cigarettes are characterized by a longer time to the onset of symptoms and changes in individual organs, which in turn slows disease progression. Furthermore, replacing conventional cigarettes with electronic cigarettes may reverse some of the changes in the vascular epithelium and reduce the severity of bronchial obstruction in patients with asthma. The fact that e-cigarettes, as a form of nicotine administration, have been developed relatively recently does not allow us to precisely determine the effects of their long-term use and still leaves many doubts that can be dispelled by long-term clinical studies and patient observations.
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.