↓ Skip to main content

Electronic cigarette use and harm reversal: emerging evidence in the lung

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, March 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 (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
twitter
445 X users
facebook
192 Facebook pages
googleplus
17 Google+ users
reddit
5 Redditors
video
2 YouTube creators

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
124 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
Electronic cigarette use and harm reversal: emerging evidence in the lung
Published in
BMC Medicine, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12916-015-0298-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Riccardo Polosa

Abstract

Electronic cigarettes (ECs) have been rapidly gaining ground on conventional cigarettes due to their efficiency in ceasing or reducing tobacco consumption, competitive prices, and the perception of them being a much less harmful smoking alternative. Direct confirmation that long-term EC use leads to reductions in smoking-related diseases is not available and it will take a few decades before the tobacco harm reduction potential of this products is firmly established. Nonetheless, it is feasible to detect early changes in airway function and respiratory symptoms in smokers switching to e-vapor. Acute investigations do not appear to support negative respiratory health outcomes in EC users and initial findings from long-term studies are supportive of a beneficial effect of EC use in relation to respiratory outcomes. The emerging evidence that EC use can reverse harm from tobacco smoking should be taken into consideration by regulatory authorities seeking to adopt proportional measures for the e-vapor category.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 445 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 124 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Unknown 120 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 25 20%
Researcher 18 15%
Student > Master 18 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 14%
Other 9 7%
Other 27 22%
Unknown 10 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 11%
Psychology 13 10%
Environmental Science 9 7%
Social Sciences 7 6%
Other 27 22%
Unknown 14 11%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 459. 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 23 August 2023.
All research outputs
#60,936
of 25,768,270 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#70
of 4,088 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#614
of 292,242 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#2
of 82 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,768,270 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 4,088 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 46.2. 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 292,242 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 82 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 97% of its contemporaries.