ReviewCureus2026
Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems and Cardiovascular Health: A Narrative Review of E-Cigarettes, Heated Tobacco Products, and the Challenge of Disentangling Risk.
Review in Cureus, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS), encompassing e-cigarettes, pod devices, and heated tobacco products (HTPs), have attained considerable global prevalence in recent years. While the cardiovascular consequences of conventional tobacco smoking are well characterized, the corresponding risks associated with ENDS remain incompletely understood. This review synthesizes the available evidence across device categories, drawing upon prospective cohort studies, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of acute physiological effects, and experimental mechanistic research. Current evidence does not allow reliable quantification of cardiovascular risk attributable specifically to ENDS, independent of prior smoking, nor does it support the conclusion that these products are cardiovascularly safe. Dual use is associated with the highest observed risk, though this likely reflects both continued smoking exposure and differences in underlying user characteristics and should not be assumed to confer harm reduction. Direct ENDS versus cigarette comparisons are non-significant and of very low certainty; apparent benefit may reflect smoking cessation rather than a protective effect of ENDS per se. A main evidence gap is the absence of long-duration cohort data among individuals who have never smoked.
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.