↓ Skip to main content

Multicentric cohort study on the long-term efficacy and safety of electronic cigarettes: study design and methodology

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, September 2013
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 (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
twitter
5 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
165 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
Multicentric cohort study on the long-term efficacy and safety of electronic cigarettes: study design and methodology
Published in
BMC Public Health, September 2013
DOI 10.1186/1471-2458-13-883
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lamberto Manzoli, Carlo La Vecchia, Maria Elena Flacco, Lorenzo Capasso, Valentina Simonetti, Stefania Boccia, Angela Di Baldassarre, Paolo Villari, Andrea Mezzetti, Giancarlo Cicolini

Abstract

While electronic cigarettes are forbidden in several countries, their sales are exploding in many others. Although e-cigarettes have been proposed as long-term substitutes for traditional smoking or as a tool for smoking cessation, very scarce data are available on their efficacy and safety.We describe the protocol of a 5-year multicentric prospective study aimed to evaluate short- and long-term adherence to e-cigarette smoking and the efficacy of e-cigarettes in reducing and/or quitting traditional cigarette smoking. The study will also compare the health effects of electronic vs traditional vs mixed cigarette smoking.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 165 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
United Kingdom 2 1%
Malaysia 2 1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 157 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 36 22%
Researcher 29 18%
Student > Bachelor 17 10%
Other 12 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 7%
Other 35 21%
Unknown 24 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 53 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 9%
Psychology 14 8%
Social Sciences 13 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 7%
Other 27 16%
Unknown 32 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. 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 31 December 2015.
All research outputs
#223,145
of 6,896,042 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#257
of 6,269 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,636
of 133,962 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#13
of 237 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 6,896,042 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,269 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 133,962 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 237 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.