↓ Skip to main content

Basic science of electronic cigarettes: assessment in cell culture and in vivo models

Overview of attention for article published in Respiratory Research, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
13 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
5 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
59 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
163 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Basic science of electronic cigarettes: assessment in cell culture and in vivo models
Published in
Respiratory Research, October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12931-016-0447-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pieter S. Hiemstra, Robert Bals

Abstract

Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes, ECIGs) were introduced into the market a decade ago as an alternative to tobacco smoking. Whether ECIGs are safe and whether they qualify as smoking cessation tool is currently unknown. Their use has markedly expanded in that period, despite the fact that potential toxic effects of the vapour created by the e-cigarette and the nicotine-containing cartridge fluid have been incompletely studied. Marketing targets diverse groups including older smokers but also young people. Whereas the adverse health effects of nicotine inhaled by users of ECIGs has been well documented, less is known about the other components. An increasing number of in vitro and in vivo studies demonstrate a range of adverse effects of both the vapour created by ECIGs as well as the nicotine-containing fluid. Importantly, these studies demonstrate that toxicity from ECIGs, although this may be less than that caused by tobacco products, not only arises from its nicotine content. Furthermore, there are no data on the long-term consequences of ECIG use. The wide range of ECIG products available to consumers and the lack of standardisation of toxicological approaches towards ECIG evaluation complicates the assessment of adverse health effects of their use. Here we review the current data on preclinical studies on ECIGs describing their effects in cell culture and animal models.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 163 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 162 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 25 15%
Student > Master 24 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 9%
Other 13 8%
Researcher 9 6%
Other 32 20%
Unknown 45 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 21%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 14 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 6%
Psychology 9 6%
Other 33 20%
Unknown 53 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 December 2019.
All research outputs
#1,829,328
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Respiratory Research
#164
of 3,062 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,885
of 327,752 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Respiratory Research
#3
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,062 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 327,752 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.