↓ Skip to main content

Acute effects of nicotine-free and flavour-free electronic cigarette use on lung functions in healthy and asthmatic individuals

Overview of attention for article published in Respiratory Research, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
79 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
128 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
Acute effects of nicotine-free and flavour-free electronic cigarette use on lung functions in healthy and asthmatic individuals
Published in
Respiratory Research, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12931-017-0518-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marie-Ève Boulay, Cyndi Henry, Ynuk Bossé, Louis-Philippe Boulet, Mathieu C. Morissette

Abstract

We designed a crossover and placebo-controlled trial to investigate the impact of a 1-h acute vaping session of nicotine-free and flavour-free e-liquid on the pulmonary functions and respiratory mechanics of healthy and asthmatic individuals. This study shows that a 1-h vaping session of a high-grade and contaminant-free mixture of propylene glycol and glycerol using a commercially available electronic cigarette performed in a controlled environment does not significantly impact pulmonary functions, respiratory mechanics or symptoms in healthy or asthmatic subjects.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 79 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 128 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 128 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 20 16%
Student > Master 17 13%
Researcher 13 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 6%
Student > Postgraduate 6 5%
Other 19 15%
Unknown 45 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 26%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 5%
Psychology 5 4%
Other 19 15%
Unknown 48 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 56. 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 14 October 2019.
All research outputs
#759,061
of 25,446,666 outputs
Outputs from Respiratory Research
#52
of 3,068 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,818
of 427,788 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Respiratory Research
#1
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,446,666 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,068 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 98% 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 427,788 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 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 99% of its contemporaries.