↓ Skip to main content

E-cigarettes: methodological and ideological issues and research priorities

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, January 2015
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 (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
195 X users
facebook
11 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
109 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
E-cigarettes: methodological and ideological issues and research priorities
Published in
BMC Medicine, January 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12916-014-0264-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jean-François Etter

Abstract

Cigarette combustion, rather than either tobacco or nicotine, is the cause of a public health disaster. Fortunately, several new technologies that vaporize nicotine or tobacco, and may make cigarettes obsolete, have recently appeared. Research priorities include the effects of vaporizers on smoking cessation and initiation, their safety and toxicity, use by non-smokers, dual use of vaporizers and cigarettes, passive vaping, renormalization of smoking, and the development of messages that effectively communicate the continuum of risk for tobacco and nicotine products. A major difficulty is that we are chasing a moving target. New products constantly appear, and research results are often obsolete by the time they are published. Vaporizers do not need to be safe, only safer than cigarettes. However, harm reduction principles are often misunderstood or rejected. In the context of a fierce ideological debate, and major investments by the tobacco industry, it is crucial that independent researchers provide regulators and the public with evidence-based guidance. The methodological and ideological hurdles on this path are discussed in this commentary.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 195 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 109 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Poland 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 105 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 16%
Student > Master 15 14%
Student > Bachelor 15 14%
Other 9 8%
Professor 9 8%
Other 24 22%
Unknown 20 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 25%
Psychology 11 10%
Social Sciences 10 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 8%
Environmental Science 6 6%
Other 21 19%
Unknown 25 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 179. 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 16 April 2023.
All research outputs
#228,540
of 25,734,859 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#195
of 4,080 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,503
of 361,489 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#2
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,734,859 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,080 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.9. 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 361,489 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 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 96% of its contemporaries.