↓ Skip to main content

Electronic cigarettes and nicotine dependence: evolving products, evolving problems

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
34 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
47 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
115 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 cigarettes and nicotine dependence: evolving products, evolving problems
Published in
BMC Medicine, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12916-015-0355-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Caroline O Cobb, Peter S Hendricks, Thomas Eissenberg

Abstract

Electronic cigarettes (ECIGs) use an electric heater to aerosolize a liquid that usually contains propylene glycol, vegetable glycerin, flavorants, and the dependence-producing drug nicotine. ECIG-induced nicotine dependence has become an important concern, as some ECIGs deliver very little nicotine while some may exceed the nicotine delivery profile of a tobacco cigarette. This variability is relevant to tobacco cigarette smokers who try to switch to ECIGs. Products with very low nicotine delivery may not substitute for tobacco cigarettes, so that ECIG use is accompanied by little reduced risk of cigarette-caused disease. Products with very high nicotine delivery may make quitting ECIGs particularly difficult should users decide to try. For non-smokers, the wide variability of ECIGs on the market is especially troublesome: low nicotine products may lead them to initiate nicotine self-administration and progress to higher dosing ECIGs or other products, and those that deliver more nicotine may produce nicotine dependence where it was not otherwise present. External regulatory action, guided by strong science, may be required to ensure that population-level nicotine dependence does not rise.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 34 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 115 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 115 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 12%
Student > Bachelor 14 12%
Student > Master 11 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 6%
Other 22 19%
Unknown 38 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 18%
Psychology 15 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 4%
Environmental Science 5 4%
Other 21 18%
Unknown 42 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 20 April 2020.
All research outputs
#1,636,895
of 25,299,129 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#1,161
of 3,980 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,182
of 273,151 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#31
of 84 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,299,129 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,980 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 273,151 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 84 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.