↓ Skip to main content

Clearing the air: protocol for a systematic meta-narrative review on the harms and benefits of e-cigarettes and vapour devices

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
107 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
Clearing the air: protocol for a systematic meta-narrative review on the harms and benefits of e-cigarettes and vapour devices
Published in
Systematic Reviews, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13643-016-0264-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marjorie MacDonald, Renee O’Leary, Tim Stockwell, Dan Reist

Abstract

Under the shadow of the tobacco epidemic, the sale and use of e-cigarettes and other vapour devices is increasing dramatically. A contentious debate has risen within public health over the harms and benefits of these devices. Clearing the Air seeks to clarify the issues with a systematic review that informs the pressing regulatory and public health decisions to be made regarding these new products. Using an integrated knowledge translation approach, public health researchers and knowledge users will work collaboratively throughout the project. Our research questions are the following: (1) What are the health risks and benefits of vapour devices, and how do these compare to cigarettes? (2) What is the harm reduction potential of vapour devices for individuals, the environment, and society? (3) Does youth vapour device experimentation lead to cigarette use? (4) Can vapour devices be effective aids for tobacco cessation? and (5) What is the potential toxicity of second-hand vapour? We are using meta-narrative review to synthesize studies from diverse research traditions because of its capacity to address contestations around a topic. The project has six phases. In the planning phase, we finalized the research questions. In the search phase, we are locating academic publications and grey literature aided by a research librarian. The mapping phase involves categorizing these papers into research traditions to understand different perspectives on the evidence for each research question. In the appraisal phase, we will select and evaluate the relevant papers. Finally, in the synthesis phase, using analytic techniques unique to meta-narrative methodology, we will compare and contrast the evidence from different research traditions to answer our research questions, identifying overarching meta-narratives. In the final stage, the full team will draft recommendations to be disseminated through a variety of knowledge translation strategies. Meta-narrative synthesis has the unique capacity to expose the debates that are influencing the interpretation of empirical studies on vapour devices. We seek to "clear the air" with an even-handed review of the evidence and an understanding of the tensions within public health so that we can offer clear-headed recommendations for policy, regulation, and future research. PROSPERO CRD42015025267.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 107 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 2%
Germany 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 103 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 17%
Researcher 12 11%
Other 10 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 9%
Student > Bachelor 9 8%
Other 26 24%
Unknown 22 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 22%
Social Sciences 12 11%
Psychology 9 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 6%
Other 22 21%
Unknown 26 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 13 February 2019.
All research outputs
#4,076,583
of 15,730,683 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#767
of 1,394 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,114
of 268,705 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#8
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,730,683 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 1,394 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 268,705 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 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 63% of its contemporaries.