↓ Skip to main content

A critique of the US Surgeon General’s conclusions regarding e-cigarette use among youth and young adults in the United States of America

Overview of attention for article published in Harm Reduction Journal, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#43 of 1,141)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
184 X users
facebook
5 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
122 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
A critique of the US Surgeon General’s conclusions regarding e-cigarette use among youth and young adults in the United States of America
Published in
Harm Reduction Journal, September 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12954-017-0187-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Riccardo Polosa, Christopher Russell, Joel Nitzkin, Konstantinos E. Farsalinos

Abstract

In December 2016, the Surgeon General published a report that concluded e-cigarette use among youth and young adults is becoming a major public health concern in the United States of America. Re-analysis of key data sources on nicotine toxicity and prevalence of youth use of e-cigarettes cited in the Surgeon General report as the basis for its conclusions. Multiple years of nationally representative surveys indicate the majority of e-cigarette use among US youth is either infrequent or experimental, and negligible among never-smoking youth. The majority of the very small proportion of US youth who use e-cigarettes on a regular basis, consume nicotine-free products. The sharpest declines in US youth smoking rates have occurred as e-cigarettes have become increasingly available. Most of the evidence presented in the Surgeon General's discussion of nicotine harm is not applicable to e-cigarette use, because it relies almost exclusively on exposure to nicotine in the cigarette smoke and not to nicotine present in e-cigarette aerosol emissions. Moreover, the referenced literature describes effects in adults, not youth, and in animal models that have little relevance to real-world e-cigarette use by youth. The Surgeon General's report is an excellent reference document for the adverse outcomes due to nicotine in combination with several other toxicants present in tobacco smoke, but fails to address the risks of nicotine decoupled from tobacco smoke constituents. The report exaggerates the toxicity of propylene glycol (PG) and vegetable glycerin (VG) by focusing on experimental conditions that do not reflect use in the real-world and provides little discussion of emerging evidence that e-cigarettes may significantly reduce harm to smokers who have completely switched. The U.S. Surgeon General's claim that e-cigarette use among U.S. youth and young adults is an emerging public health concern does not appear to be supported by the best available evidence on the health risks of nicotine use and population survey data on prevalence of frequent e-cigarette use. Nonetheless, patterns of e-cigarettes use in youth must be constantly monitored for early detection of significant changes. The next US Surgeon General should consider the possibility that future generations of young Americans will be less likely to start smoking tobacco because of, not in spite of, the availability of e-cigarettes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 184 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 122 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 122 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 12%
Researcher 13 11%
Student > Bachelor 11 9%
Professor 6 5%
Other 20 16%
Unknown 37 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 14%
Psychology 15 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 11%
Social Sciences 8 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 6%
Other 18 15%
Unknown 43 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 155. 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 17 January 2024.
All research outputs
#268,865
of 25,743,152 outputs
Outputs from Harm Reduction Journal
#43
of 1,141 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,633
of 324,198 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Harm Reduction Journal
#4
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,743,152 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,141 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 28.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 324,198 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.