↓ Skip to main content

Short-term effects of a nicotine-free e-cigarette compared to a traditional cigarette in smokers and non-smokers

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
58 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
Short-term effects of a nicotine-free e-cigarette compared to a traditional cigarette in smokers and non-smokers
Published in
BMC Pulmonary Medicine, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12890-015-0106-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marco Ferrari, Alessandro Zanasi, Elena Nardi, Antonio Maria Morselli Labate, Piero Ceriana, Antonella Balestrino, Lara Pisani, Nadia Corcione, Stefano Nava

Abstract

A few studies have assessed the short-term effects of low-dose nicotine e-cigarettes, while data about nicotine-free e-cigarettes (NF e-cigarettes) are scanty. Concerns have been expressed about the use of NF e-cigarettes, because of the high concentrations of propylene glycol and other compounds in the e-cigarette vapor. This laboratory-based study was aimed to compare the effects of ad libitum use of a NF e-cigarette or and a traditional cigarette for 5 min in healthy adult smokers (n = 10) and non-smokers (n = 10). The main outcome measures were pulmonary function tests, fraction of exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) and fractional concentration of carbon monoxide (FeCO) in exhaled breath. The traditional cigarette induced statistically significant increases in FeCO in both smokers and non-smokers, while no significant changes were observed in FeNO. In non-smokers, the traditional cigarette induced a significant decrease from baseline in FEF75 (81 % ± 35 % vs 70.2 % ± 28.2 %, P = 0.013), while in smokers significant decreases were observed in FEF25 (101.3 % ± 16.4 % vs 93.5 % ± 31.7 %, P = 0.037), FEV1 (102.2 % ± 9.5 % vs 98.3 % ± 10 %, P = 0.037) and PEF (109.5 % ± 14.6 % vs 99.2 % ± 17.5 %, P = 0.009). In contrast, the only statistically significant effects induced by the NF e-cigarette in smokers were reductions in FEV1 (102.2 % ± 9.5 % vs 99.5 ± 7.6 %, P = 0.041) and FEF25 (103.4 % ± 16.4 % vs 94.2 % ± 16.2 %, P = 0.014). The present study demonstrated that the specific brand of NF e-cigarette utilized did not induce any majoracute effects. In contrast, several studies have shown that both traditional cigarettes and nicotine-containing e-cigarettes have acute effects on lung function. Our study expands on previous observations on the effects of NF e-cigarettes, but also for the first time describes the changes induced by smoking one traditional cigarette in a group of never smokers. The short-term use of the specific brand of NF e-cigarette assessed in this study had no immediate adverse effects on non-smokers and only small effects on FEV1 and FEF25 in smokers. The long-term health effects of NF e-cigarette use are unknown but worthy of further investigations. Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02102191.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 165 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%
India 1 <1%
Unknown 162 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 22 13%
Student > Master 20 12%
Student > Bachelor 20 12%
Other 12 7%
Student > Postgraduate 10 6%
Other 41 25%
Unknown 40 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 21%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 11 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 6%
Unspecified 10 6%
Environmental Science 9 5%
Other 42 25%
Unknown 48 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 25 June 2021.
All research outputs
#6,119,844
of 23,577,761 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pulmonary Medicine
#432
of 2,002 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,487
of 280,593 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pulmonary Medicine
#10
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,761 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,002 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 280,593 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.