Trial reportAddictive behaviors2026
Restricting choice of e-cigarette flavor and device type increases choices to use combusted cigarettes among adults who dual use both products: Results from a within-subjects randomized trial.
Trial report in Addictive behaviors, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Tea-inspired curing modulates chemical composition, volatile aroma, and sensory quality of flue-cured tobacco leaves.Scientific reports · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionData from real-world e-cigarette (EC) flavor bans suggest that such bans may increase combusted cigarette (CC) use. However, experimental data are needed to better understand how EC characteristics affect EC appeal and CC use.
methodsParticipants were adults who used both CC and flavored EC. They made 10 choices per session between taking two puffs from an EC or CC (supplied by study) or abstaining. EC type was unblinded and varied across three counterbalanced sessions: 1) own device and flavor, 2) study device with a non-tobacco-flavored e-liquid, and 3) study device with a tobacco-flavored e-liquid. Analyses evaluated EC appeal and choices to use EC, CC, or abstain.
resultsParticipants (n = 41) reported using CCs on 22.1 days/month and ECs on 26.9 days/month. Appeal of study EC was lower than participants' own EC, and participants made fewer choices for EC during tobacco-flavor EC versus own device sessions (p = 0.006). Relative to own device sessions, participants made a greater number of choices for CC when study EC were available (p's < 0.05), regardless of flavor. DISCUSSION: Regulators and public health officials should be aware that restricting EC characteristics such as device type and flavor may increase consumption of CC among people who use both products, especially people who find restricted EC less appealing than their own device. Findings are consistent with real-world sales data following EC flavor bans.
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.